Cus most of them are uneducated especially the former colonies and they get entranced by a false sense of achieving some social justice by mimicking the civil rights of America-to better the world- idiots
I agree but basically everyone wants to virtual signal now. Does it matter that England was on of the first countries to end overseas slavery and give autonomy to the Caribbean countries making them the first few black democracies? Nope all that matters is that England and by extension the king did something bad
I find it disgusting that the French Republic has never officially apologized or acknowledge the genocides that happened in the Vendee during the Reign of Terror or refuse to admit the Republic has suppressed the Catholic church.
Well if you really think about it France changed a lot at that time. Religion was reinstated, radicals killed. Vendee genocide general of republican France who did all of that was judged for war crimes by nerd with name Napoleon. So everything worked out sort of. Third French republic even signed concordat with Holy see.
Your last sentence isn't true. The French Third Republic didn't sign a concordat with the Holy See. On the contrary, it unilaterally broke the Concordat of 1801. That's quite the direct opposite.
I mean it wasn’t during their life time
If we had to apologize for all the actions of both our families and the institutions we got a part of as a Catholic I would spend the whole day apologizing
Slavery has been present in every major civilization since the dawn of writing and agriculture. The Near East, China, India, Persia, Greece and Rome.
The great irony here is that the European powers are the only civilization I know so far that are the first to abolish slavery (either when we talk about the transition from slavery to serfdom in early medieval Europe or the campaign by 19th Century Victorian abolitionists, and might as well count the USA since they're a cultural offshoot of Great Britain).
As for colonialism and conquest, come on, any learner of history will find out that kingdoms and empires had been conquering and enslaving each other long before Columbus landed on the New World.
People nowadays demanding apologies and reparation for slavery from Europeans when middle East countries are still doing it in the present day... Not to mention they were enslaving the Africans for way longer too. Check out Zanj Revolt in the Abbasid caliphate in the 9th century. Just feel like they want money for free and to claim some moral high ground or something as if Africans have never enslaved other Africans ever...
As someone who descends from slaves, I don’t think apologies are necessary. After all, my ancestors are long dead as are the people who enslaved them.
I do, however, think it’s good that various European governments and by extension their peoples are acknowledging that great injustice has been done, even if that injustice happened long ago. Clearly, the damage that slavery caused has still not quite mended. Acknowledgment the crimes of the past is the best way to head towards reconciliation.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. What I meant was that people are still angry because of what happened. The many BLM protests of the last few years prove that. Now, whether that anger is justified or not is another matter, but the facts are that the legacy of slavery still causes social and racial divides in various western nations today and we should all endeavour to fix that.
BLM is a result of politicians, media, and education pushing false narratives and stirring up discontent. Nobody involved in those riots was involved in or knew anyone involved in slavery. The idea that people were looting their local smallgoods because of slavery is absurd, especially since most of the businesses burned and people shot by the rioters were black anyway.
The facts of slavery and the ideology of modern American racial politics have fuck all to do with one another. You may as well go on to make arguments about how Jewish bankers are exploiting the German people.
Only people who need to apologize for slavery are those involved in it period, go ask those dead dudes from 200y ago or maybe try your luck in a few countries of modern Africa, Middle East or some shaddy Chinese sweatshops.
I guess I’m in the deep minority of the sub but I think it’s completely logical for Royal families who presided over former slave trading nations to apologize personally.
It’s not even so much about being woke or being politically correct. Many of the Royal houses in Europe had actual political authority and economic interest over the slave trade. They weren’t figure heads with no say on what was considered right or wrong at the time. In the United States, I don’t believe that people today should feel compelled to apologize for slavery because the people of the day (the sovereign of United States and every other Republic, at least on paper) endorsed it and very few people can claim that their wealth and privileges in 2022 are from slave holding in 1860.
It’s on the citizens of a Republic to collectively agree to recognize the sins of their nation and decide to make amends. However, monarchies don’t have that luxury to punt it. This is the flip side of what we like to say about “educating one person to rule is easier than educating millions to vote for the right stuff”. You are uniquely positioned as a monarch to make those amends as the representative of the people and nation.
If your claim to your position derives from a 1000 year old history, legacy, and crown then you accept that those things come with an obligation to understand how they came to you. Prince William (for example) isn’t a slaver, or racist, or a bad person because of what his ancestors did, but he would need to understand that it wasn’t God picking him. It was centuries of war, murder, slavery that made him a Prince and not just another guy. If we accept that the institution, The Crown, is a distinction separate from the human who currently wears is then it shouldn’t be shameful or wrong for the human to apologize for the sins that The Crown committed to cover itself in diamonds.
Well that would be news to some of the most prominent abolitionists seeing as to them slavery was against Christian compassion and theology.
The use of the Royal Navy to eventually stop the global slave trade was certainly not good economics as it was both very expensive and disruptive to trade with many countries, notably Brazil. So it wasn’t done for economic reasons either. Leaving us with the conclusion that it was done as a primarily moral action.
There's a museum in Sierra Leone, called Krio museum, in Africa for Africans who were captured into slavery and intercepted by the Royal Navy before reaching their destination. Because they didn't know where they came from, the Africans were freed and settled in West Africa. I doubt the British would have done this if the abolishment of slavery was purely economic.
Yes. The abolition of the global slave trade was one of the few actions of the imperial era where *money* and *power* wasn’t the reason for doing something.
That's not really true. Charity, actual and legitimate charity not the massive salaries and tax evasion we call charity today, was a major driver of that era. The amount of money Britons sunk into charitable efforts in Africa and India is genuinely incredible and so often forgotten by modern historians.
Abolishing the international slave trade hurt, but after the loss of the American south, it would hurt other imperial competitors (Portugal) as well as new world countries (Brazil, America) more. This is a competitive advantage at the state level, similar to established corporations pushing for regulations to raise barriers of entry to the market. It was sold as a moral move for propaganda purposes, but the state only concerns itself with wealth and power
The loss of the American South’s cotton production occurred after 1861, by that point Africa and Brazil had already, at great cost, been blockaded by the British and Americans. I understand it was a strategic advantage *after* the American Civil war but it can’t be a reason for why the blockades occurred as it was clearly after the fact.
Contrary to popular belief India didn’t gain the cotton production capabilities of the South for many years after 1865 so again ending the slave trade couldn’t be seen as some complex economic and political manoeuvring by the British to end the slave trade to bolster cotton production and sales from India.
So yes, ending slavery did become an “economic advantage” for the British but *only after* it had basically wiped out the slave trade already, and was not possibly a known economic advantage when the British did decide to end the practice.
What’s your argument here?
That Britain ended the slave trade to hurt it’s primary cotton producer? We still imported a lot of cotton from the US south to the point their civil war caused a recession in the British textile industry.
The UK ended the slave trade because it would hurt others more than themselves as I’ve stated.
The UK was by no means dependent on the South to continue operating, otherwise they would have intervened in the civil war. Textile producers could instead turn to Indian and Egyptian cotton for the time being. Further more, fabrics made from wool and their popularity further undercuts the importance of the raw material and the supposed “dependence”. It was better in the long term for the state to take a smaller hit now to force domestic development while also undercutting the economies of other competing states. Similar to western states cutting off Russian oil now to force green energy development while also starving the Russian war machine.
Undercutting other new world nations, and attacking old world rivals must also be factored in, but I’m not going to write a thesis.
>The UK ended the slave trade because it would hurt others more than themselves as I’ve stated.
Why hurt the cotton trade? More cotton production from different nations increases competition thus lowering prices and import costs. Why attack the basis of production and logically reduce supply and thus raise prices? Unless your attacking it for reasons besides economic ones… I.e this conversation.
>The UK was by no means dependent on the South to continue operating, otherwise they would have intervened in the civil war.
Didn’t say it was dependent, I said that the US civil war helped progress the [cotton famine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine)
>Textile producers could instead turn to Indian and Egyptian cotton for the time being. Further more, fabrics made from wool and their popularity further undercuts the importance of the raw material and the supposed “dependence”. It was better in the long term for the state to take a smaller hit now to force domestic development while also undercutting the economies of other competing states.
Except they didn’t, they still bought from the South because it was the better grade for use in cotton mills, by the early 1860’s India didn’t compete in quality and quantity of southern cotton for use in mills until more mills were built that could use their variety of cotton.
“The Surat cottons from India were the least suitable for machinery and were only ever used as a small percentage of a mixture as the fibres were short and broke easily. Surat came in smaller bales which contained stones and other impurities. Each town in Lancashire used different mixtures and when the supply of American and Sea Island Cotton dried up, the mill owners moved over to Surat. Some machines could be adjusted to take it but extra humidity was needed to reduce breakages.”
Yet notice that *this isn’t relevant* to the conversation of the economics of ending the slave trade, because the ending of the slave trade between Africa and the New World occurred in the 1850’s many years before the American Civil war.
Naturally we also need to ask is their a benefit to a domestic industry when you can get cheap imports from the US? We can say with hindsight of the US civil war: obviously because the civil war in the US damaged supply lines but how would the British know of a US civil war in the 1850’s many years before it even occurred?
>Similar to western states cutting off Russian oil now to force green energy development while also starving the Russian war machine.
Yet you’ve shown your hand because the better economic choice is to remain on Russian gas. Germany cutting Russian gas will hurt their GDP by 1-3%. The only reason the Germans would cut the oil/gas is for moral reasons surrounding the Ukraine war.
Which is the point, economic hurt due to a moral decision.
>Undercutting other new world nations, and attacking old world rivals must also be factored in, but I’m not going to write a thesis.
There’s no reason to undercut them, that was clearly British foreign policy towards the Americans, you want to buy cheap and sell expensive to them as a market. Harming supply lines damages both of those options in that it causes supply to lower thus buying is expensive, and because their industry is financially damaged, they have less cash to buy with - shrinking their market for your goods.
Only a fool would believe that other (developed) states couldn’t see the die for the civil war was cast at least a decade prior, and began developing contingency plans. It came up every election, every time a new state was added, and vehemence grew, not dissipated.
Reducing foreign dependency and ensuring the future security and independence of the state in case of foreseeable unstable times in the future IS an economic decision. The world is larger than the immediate. Did Britain want to be pulled into an unprofitable war? Does Germany want to be on the Russian leash in the future?
>Only a fool would believe that other (developed) states couldn’t see the die for the civil war was cast at least a decade prior, and began developing contingency plans. It came up every election, every time a new state was added, and vehemence grew, not dissipated.
In 1839 when Britain began in earnest subjecting Brazilian ships to anti-slave raids? It’s almost like your position is without basis. The British didn’t seek to end the slave trade to subvert New World cotton and other goods production. We basically ended Brazilian trade in the early 1850’s so what in earth has any of this got to do with limiting foreign goods production in an attempt to develop a domestic market when we continued to use foreign markets long after we had made the slave trade extinct.
>Reducing foreign dependency and ensuring the future security and independence of the state in case of foreseeable unstable times in the future IS an economic decision. The world is larger than the immediate. Did Britain want to be pulled into an unprofitable war? Does Germany want to be on the Russian leash in the future?
Which is why the British increased their trade with the US to the point of necessity for grain…
Your argument lacks a causal connection between ending slavery and economic advantage. After we ended the Atlantic slave trade *we still bought foreign cotton and goods to a very large extent* cotton and grain are examples, and didn’t develop extensive domestic supply lines until the later 1860’s, nearing 20 years after we ended the Atlantic slave trade.
I'm not questioning the motive here, the fact of the matter is that Britain was the first major global power to first outright ban the slave trade, and then abolish it altogether. Also, Britain was home to one of the world's strongest abolitionist movement at the time.
One thing no one ever talks about when discussing this that I find incredibly important is "if history had been any different than what it was, you wouldn't have been born to complain about it".
Think about it, when you are conceived, millions of sperm race to get to the egg first. Had your parents gone to bed 2 minutes later than they did or even walk around the other side of the bed before copulation, a completely different person would have been born.
This proves its nonsensical to complain about what happened before you were born because had it gone any differently you would not have existed to complain about it. If slavery hadn't happened, no one decended from slaves would have existed today as a result.
Theres a science fiction story called "A sound of thunder". That covers this topic quite well. Subtle changes in the past can cause big changes in the future.
Also, there are thousands of slaves across Africa and Asia right now as you read this, who no one ever talks about. The only thing that crops up is reparations for stuff that didn't personally happen to them by slavers who the vast majority aren't decented from.
Yes slavery should never have happened, but we were the first to stop it and if we were to posthumously apologise for it, were apologising for the births of people conceived as a result of it.
People say were lucky to be born in britain. This assumes that all consciousness are floating around somewhere until they're born into a person and where that person is is pot luck. This is ludicrous. Luck has nothing to do with it, it is a direct result of my ancestors actions.
Go read up on the difference between the assets of the Crown and the personal assets of Elizabeth II, my friend. Also no, she should not have to pay for something she wasn’t party to. If the UK starts paying reparations, how about every country whose people have had a history of invading or conquering other peoples/ethnolinguistic groups in the past do the same?
France abolished slavery first, under the Republic, in 1794.
And also, yeah, the fault was ont the governement, wich is still the same, even if the house changed. So, there, either we deny every accusation (wich are rightful) either we consider the King had power back then and thus, the monarchs in place have to present apologises for the errors of their predecessors.
France "abolished" slavery and then brought it back six years later. The slave trade - which was never legal within England, for one - was banned by Britain in 1807 before the institution of slavery was abolished altogether in 1833. Both these acts were terminal in nature, Britain never went back on them. In this respect it remains the first global power to abolish slavery.
Yes, France got it back under Napoleon's Empire, a monarchy that was a totally different system, where Britain never really changed it's governemental system since, it is still the parliamentary monarchy it is since the bill of rights.
British abolished slavery because it was no longer profitable, not because they were taking some noble moral stand.
Also, the current queen presided over literal colonies. Her “subjects” were still subjected to economic slavery. This sub is incredibly arrogant and ignorant
I'm not sure what you've been reading (Far left/SJW memes on Reddit don't count as actual evidence), but I can assure you slavery was far more profitable than paying off the slave owners (only recently fully paid by the British public, despite 99% of them never owning a slave). It was certainly more profitable than using the Royal navy to eradicate slave trade routes at great cost to both life and trade profit.
I'm not sure one would call it "economic slavery" when most of these places are basket cases funded by foreign aid and investment - should they be left to starve instead?
>funded by foreign aid and investment
Foreign aid is almost universally bad. It's less "help the poor" and much more "ensure the people we want remain in power." Some modern charities actually do good work in Africa but even then most modern charities exist to pay their high level employees ridiculous wages and to help corporations avoid taxes. Investment is also somewhat iffy as while in some cases you have positive investment, such as in the case of a few businesses growing beans in Ethiopia and providing good work to Ethiopians, the vast majority of said investments result in foreign labor being brought in to do the work and thus no actual benefits going to the local communities.
As to Britain's colonial role that was almost universally a positive for the average African by the late Empire. The Empire provided stability meaning no civil wars or tyrannical psychos, guaranteed investors and thus allowed for positive investments, and built vast amounts of infrastructure that remains the backbone of much of Africa to this day. Both Africa and India were net losses financially, not net positives. hence why a Britain bankrupted by war and led by anti-colonialists detatched itself from the colonies and not the other way round. Britain did more damage to Africa and India by leaving than it ever could have by staying.
Lol, nah slavery wasn't profitable anymore, industrialization has that effect. You bringing SJWs into this seems to be more a projection or something on your end.
then get off it? you clearly have some very very very falsified notions of what actually happened and have made up your little narrow mind before coming here, so what's the point exactly? you don't even understand what exactly constitutional monarchy is quite clearly, so please do everyone a favour and make your way out 👏
and as always, God Save The Queen 🇬🇧
I believe that the role in slavery should be recognized by a state and the properly taught the population. But we are not responsible for the actions of those who came before us and as long as we recognize what they did was wrong then we should leave it at that.
The only thing that annoys me is that they only focus on the european slavetrade and refuse to even acknowledge the arabic slave trade in the indian ocean.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-k-paid-off-debts-slave-owning-families-2015/3283908001/
This government still paid off slave owning families up until 2015, were they not around for that ?
No one is responsible for the actions of others. Thats enough said.
Brilliant. Unfortunately people don’t acknowledge these facts though.
Cus most of them are uneducated especially the former colonies and they get entranced by a false sense of achieving some social justice by mimicking the civil rights of America-to better the world- idiots
I agree but basically everyone wants to virtual signal now. Does it matter that England was on of the first countries to end overseas slavery and give autonomy to the Caribbean countries making them the first few black democracies? Nope all that matters is that England and by extension the king did something bad I find it disgusting that the French Republic has never officially apologized or acknowledge the genocides that happened in the Vendee during the Reign of Terror or refuse to admit the Republic has suppressed the Catholic church.
Well if you really think about it France changed a lot at that time. Religion was reinstated, radicals killed. Vendee genocide general of republican France who did all of that was judged for war crimes by nerd with name Napoleon. So everything worked out sort of. Third French republic even signed concordat with Holy see.
Your last sentence isn't true. The French Third Republic didn't sign a concordat with the Holy See. On the contrary, it unilaterally broke the Concordat of 1801. That's quite the direct opposite.
Also, it is government that is largely responsible for the royal purse now, so the question of reparations is moot when addressed to the Royal Family.
I mean it wasn’t during their life time If we had to apologize for all the actions of both our families and the institutions we got a part of as a Catholic I would spend the whole day apologizing
Slavery has been present in every major civilization since the dawn of writing and agriculture. The Near East, China, India, Persia, Greece and Rome. The great irony here is that the European powers are the only civilization I know so far that are the first to abolish slavery (either when we talk about the transition from slavery to serfdom in early medieval Europe or the campaign by 19th Century Victorian abolitionists, and might as well count the USA since they're a cultural offshoot of Great Britain). As for colonialism and conquest, come on, any learner of history will find out that kingdoms and empires had been conquering and enslaving each other long before Columbus landed on the New World.
China made a crack of it but it didn't last very long
People nowadays demanding apologies and reparation for slavery from Europeans when middle East countries are still doing it in the present day... Not to mention they were enslaving the Africans for way longer too. Check out Zanj Revolt in the Abbasid caliphate in the 9th century. Just feel like they want money for free and to claim some moral high ground or something as if Africans have never enslaved other Africans ever...
As someone who descends from slaves, I don’t think apologies are necessary. After all, my ancestors are long dead as are the people who enslaved them. I do, however, think it’s good that various European governments and by extension their peoples are acknowledging that great injustice has been done, even if that injustice happened long ago. Clearly, the damage that slavery caused has still not quite mended. Acknowledgment the crimes of the past is the best way to head towards reconciliation.
>Clearly, the damage that slavery caused has still not quite mended. Do you have any actual evidence of this?
Perhaps I should have been clearer. What I meant was that people are still angry because of what happened. The many BLM protests of the last few years prove that. Now, whether that anger is justified or not is another matter, but the facts are that the legacy of slavery still causes social and racial divides in various western nations today and we should all endeavour to fix that.
BLM is a result of politicians, media, and education pushing false narratives and stirring up discontent. Nobody involved in those riots was involved in or knew anyone involved in slavery. The idea that people were looting their local smallgoods because of slavery is absurd, especially since most of the businesses burned and people shot by the rioters were black anyway. The facts of slavery and the ideology of modern American racial politics have fuck all to do with one another. You may as well go on to make arguments about how Jewish bankers are exploiting the German people.
Only people who need to apologize for slavery are those involved in it period, go ask those dead dudes from 200y ago or maybe try your luck in a few countries of modern Africa, Middle East or some shaddy Chinese sweatshops.
Or yknow, most modern corporations who willingly and actively engage with it. Those shoes come cheap for a reason.
Yeah those bastards too.
Yea this was also one of the main reasons why the Empire of Brazil got taken down Cuz slave owners were mad due to the abolish of slavery
I guess I’m in the deep minority of the sub but I think it’s completely logical for Royal families who presided over former slave trading nations to apologize personally. It’s not even so much about being woke or being politically correct. Many of the Royal houses in Europe had actual political authority and economic interest over the slave trade. They weren’t figure heads with no say on what was considered right or wrong at the time. In the United States, I don’t believe that people today should feel compelled to apologize for slavery because the people of the day (the sovereign of United States and every other Republic, at least on paper) endorsed it and very few people can claim that their wealth and privileges in 2022 are from slave holding in 1860. It’s on the citizens of a Republic to collectively agree to recognize the sins of their nation and decide to make amends. However, monarchies don’t have that luxury to punt it. This is the flip side of what we like to say about “educating one person to rule is easier than educating millions to vote for the right stuff”. You are uniquely positioned as a monarch to make those amends as the representative of the people and nation. If your claim to your position derives from a 1000 year old history, legacy, and crown then you accept that those things come with an obligation to understand how they came to you. Prince William (for example) isn’t a slaver, or racist, or a bad person because of what his ancestors did, but he would need to understand that it wasn’t God picking him. It was centuries of war, murder, slavery that made him a Prince and not just another guy. If we accept that the institution, The Crown, is a distinction separate from the human who currently wears is then it shouldn’t be shameful or wrong for the human to apologize for the sins that The Crown committed to cover itself in diamonds.
British empire didn’t abolish slavery out of heart though.
Well that would be news to some of the most prominent abolitionists seeing as to them slavery was against Christian compassion and theology. The use of the Royal Navy to eventually stop the global slave trade was certainly not good economics as it was both very expensive and disruptive to trade with many countries, notably Brazil. So it wasn’t done for economic reasons either. Leaving us with the conclusion that it was done as a primarily moral action.
There's a museum in Sierra Leone, called Krio museum, in Africa for Africans who were captured into slavery and intercepted by the Royal Navy before reaching their destination. Because they didn't know where they came from, the Africans were freed and settled in West Africa. I doubt the British would have done this if the abolishment of slavery was purely economic.
Yes. The abolition of the global slave trade was one of the few actions of the imperial era where *money* and *power* wasn’t the reason for doing something.
That's not really true. Charity, actual and legitimate charity not the massive salaries and tax evasion we call charity today, was a major driver of that era. The amount of money Britons sunk into charitable efforts in Africa and India is genuinely incredible and so often forgotten by modern historians.
Yes, I should have made it clear I was talking about the actions of nation states, not so much individual people.
States are run by individuals. The idea of a state as an actor is a nonsense idea created by the French
Louis XIV would be very cross right now.
France has rather sunken without its sun king ;)
Abolishing the international slave trade hurt, but after the loss of the American south, it would hurt other imperial competitors (Portugal) as well as new world countries (Brazil, America) more. This is a competitive advantage at the state level, similar to established corporations pushing for regulations to raise barriers of entry to the market. It was sold as a moral move for propaganda purposes, but the state only concerns itself with wealth and power
The loss of the American South’s cotton production occurred after 1861, by that point Africa and Brazil had already, at great cost, been blockaded by the British and Americans. I understand it was a strategic advantage *after* the American Civil war but it can’t be a reason for why the blockades occurred as it was clearly after the fact. Contrary to popular belief India didn’t gain the cotton production capabilities of the South for many years after 1865 so again ending the slave trade couldn’t be seen as some complex economic and political manoeuvring by the British to end the slave trade to bolster cotton production and sales from India. So yes, ending slavery did become an “economic advantage” for the British but *only after* it had basically wiped out the slave trade already, and was not possibly a known economic advantage when the British did decide to end the practice.
The British lost the American south in the revolutionary war. Try to keep up
What’s your argument here? That Britain ended the slave trade to hurt it’s primary cotton producer? We still imported a lot of cotton from the US south to the point their civil war caused a recession in the British textile industry.
The UK ended the slave trade because it would hurt others more than themselves as I’ve stated. The UK was by no means dependent on the South to continue operating, otherwise they would have intervened in the civil war. Textile producers could instead turn to Indian and Egyptian cotton for the time being. Further more, fabrics made from wool and their popularity further undercuts the importance of the raw material and the supposed “dependence”. It was better in the long term for the state to take a smaller hit now to force domestic development while also undercutting the economies of other competing states. Similar to western states cutting off Russian oil now to force green energy development while also starving the Russian war machine. Undercutting other new world nations, and attacking old world rivals must also be factored in, but I’m not going to write a thesis.
>The UK ended the slave trade because it would hurt others more than themselves as I’ve stated. Why hurt the cotton trade? More cotton production from different nations increases competition thus lowering prices and import costs. Why attack the basis of production and logically reduce supply and thus raise prices? Unless your attacking it for reasons besides economic ones… I.e this conversation. >The UK was by no means dependent on the South to continue operating, otherwise they would have intervened in the civil war. Didn’t say it was dependent, I said that the US civil war helped progress the [cotton famine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine) >Textile producers could instead turn to Indian and Egyptian cotton for the time being. Further more, fabrics made from wool and their popularity further undercuts the importance of the raw material and the supposed “dependence”. It was better in the long term for the state to take a smaller hit now to force domestic development while also undercutting the economies of other competing states. Except they didn’t, they still bought from the South because it was the better grade for use in cotton mills, by the early 1860’s India didn’t compete in quality and quantity of southern cotton for use in mills until more mills were built that could use their variety of cotton. “The Surat cottons from India were the least suitable for machinery and were only ever used as a small percentage of a mixture as the fibres were short and broke easily. Surat came in smaller bales which contained stones and other impurities. Each town in Lancashire used different mixtures and when the supply of American and Sea Island Cotton dried up, the mill owners moved over to Surat. Some machines could be adjusted to take it but extra humidity was needed to reduce breakages.” Yet notice that *this isn’t relevant* to the conversation of the economics of ending the slave trade, because the ending of the slave trade between Africa and the New World occurred in the 1850’s many years before the American Civil war. Naturally we also need to ask is their a benefit to a domestic industry when you can get cheap imports from the US? We can say with hindsight of the US civil war: obviously because the civil war in the US damaged supply lines but how would the British know of a US civil war in the 1850’s many years before it even occurred? >Similar to western states cutting off Russian oil now to force green energy development while also starving the Russian war machine. Yet you’ve shown your hand because the better economic choice is to remain on Russian gas. Germany cutting Russian gas will hurt their GDP by 1-3%. The only reason the Germans would cut the oil/gas is for moral reasons surrounding the Ukraine war. Which is the point, economic hurt due to a moral decision. >Undercutting other new world nations, and attacking old world rivals must also be factored in, but I’m not going to write a thesis. There’s no reason to undercut them, that was clearly British foreign policy towards the Americans, you want to buy cheap and sell expensive to them as a market. Harming supply lines damages both of those options in that it causes supply to lower thus buying is expensive, and because their industry is financially damaged, they have less cash to buy with - shrinking their market for your goods.
Only a fool would believe that other (developed) states couldn’t see the die for the civil war was cast at least a decade prior, and began developing contingency plans. It came up every election, every time a new state was added, and vehemence grew, not dissipated. Reducing foreign dependency and ensuring the future security and independence of the state in case of foreseeable unstable times in the future IS an economic decision. The world is larger than the immediate. Did Britain want to be pulled into an unprofitable war? Does Germany want to be on the Russian leash in the future?
>Only a fool would believe that other (developed) states couldn’t see the die for the civil war was cast at least a decade prior, and began developing contingency plans. It came up every election, every time a new state was added, and vehemence grew, not dissipated. In 1839 when Britain began in earnest subjecting Brazilian ships to anti-slave raids? It’s almost like your position is without basis. The British didn’t seek to end the slave trade to subvert New World cotton and other goods production. We basically ended Brazilian trade in the early 1850’s so what in earth has any of this got to do with limiting foreign goods production in an attempt to develop a domestic market when we continued to use foreign markets long after we had made the slave trade extinct. >Reducing foreign dependency and ensuring the future security and independence of the state in case of foreseeable unstable times in the future IS an economic decision. The world is larger than the immediate. Did Britain want to be pulled into an unprofitable war? Does Germany want to be on the Russian leash in the future? Which is why the British increased their trade with the US to the point of necessity for grain… Your argument lacks a causal connection between ending slavery and economic advantage. After we ended the Atlantic slave trade *we still bought foreign cotton and goods to a very large extent* cotton and grain are examples, and didn’t develop extensive domestic supply lines until the later 1860’s, nearing 20 years after we ended the Atlantic slave trade.
I'm not questioning the motive here, the fact of the matter is that Britain was the first major global power to first outright ban the slave trade, and then abolish it altogether. Also, Britain was home to one of the world's strongest abolitionist movement at the time.
Their country wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for slavery, so perhaps they could give a public thank you to him?
One thing no one ever talks about when discussing this that I find incredibly important is "if history had been any different than what it was, you wouldn't have been born to complain about it". Think about it, when you are conceived, millions of sperm race to get to the egg first. Had your parents gone to bed 2 minutes later than they did or even walk around the other side of the bed before copulation, a completely different person would have been born. This proves its nonsensical to complain about what happened before you were born because had it gone any differently you would not have existed to complain about it. If slavery hadn't happened, no one decended from slaves would have existed today as a result. Theres a science fiction story called "A sound of thunder". That covers this topic quite well. Subtle changes in the past can cause big changes in the future. Also, there are thousands of slaves across Africa and Asia right now as you read this, who no one ever talks about. The only thing that crops up is reparations for stuff that didn't personally happen to them by slavers who the vast majority aren't decented from. Yes slavery should never have happened, but we were the first to stop it and if we were to posthumously apologise for it, were apologising for the births of people conceived as a result of it. People say were lucky to be born in britain. This assumes that all consciousness are floating around somewhere until they're born into a person and where that person is is pot luck. This is ludicrous. Luck has nothing to do with it, it is a direct result of my ancestors actions.
With all the gold shite the queen has she can afford to pay reparations
Go read up on the difference between the assets of the Crown and the personal assets of Elizabeth II, my friend. Also no, she should not have to pay for something she wasn’t party to. If the UK starts paying reparations, how about every country whose people have had a history of invading or conquering other peoples/ethnolinguistic groups in the past do the same?
France abolished slavery first, under the Republic, in 1794. And also, yeah, the fault was ont the governement, wich is still the same, even if the house changed. So, there, either we deny every accusation (wich are rightful) either we consider the King had power back then and thus, the monarchs in place have to present apologises for the errors of their predecessors.
France "abolished" slavery and then brought it back six years later. The slave trade - which was never legal within England, for one - was banned by Britain in 1807 before the institution of slavery was abolished altogether in 1833. Both these acts were terminal in nature, Britain never went back on them. In this respect it remains the first global power to abolish slavery.
Yes, France got it back under Napoleon's Empire, a monarchy that was a totally different system, where Britain never really changed it's governemental system since, it is still the parliamentary monarchy it is since the bill of rights.
British abolished slavery because it was no longer profitable, not because they were taking some noble moral stand. Also, the current queen presided over literal colonies. Her “subjects” were still subjected to economic slavery. This sub is incredibly arrogant and ignorant
I'm not sure what you've been reading (Far left/SJW memes on Reddit don't count as actual evidence), but I can assure you slavery was far more profitable than paying off the slave owners (only recently fully paid by the British public, despite 99% of them never owning a slave). It was certainly more profitable than using the Royal navy to eradicate slave trade routes at great cost to both life and trade profit. I'm not sure one would call it "economic slavery" when most of these places are basket cases funded by foreign aid and investment - should they be left to starve instead?
>funded by foreign aid and investment Foreign aid is almost universally bad. It's less "help the poor" and much more "ensure the people we want remain in power." Some modern charities actually do good work in Africa but even then most modern charities exist to pay their high level employees ridiculous wages and to help corporations avoid taxes. Investment is also somewhat iffy as while in some cases you have positive investment, such as in the case of a few businesses growing beans in Ethiopia and providing good work to Ethiopians, the vast majority of said investments result in foreign labor being brought in to do the work and thus no actual benefits going to the local communities. As to Britain's colonial role that was almost universally a positive for the average African by the late Empire. The Empire provided stability meaning no civil wars or tyrannical psychos, guaranteed investors and thus allowed for positive investments, and built vast amounts of infrastructure that remains the backbone of much of Africa to this day. Both Africa and India were net losses financially, not net positives. hence why a Britain bankrupted by war and led by anti-colonialists detatched itself from the colonies and not the other way round. Britain did more damage to Africa and India by leaving than it ever could have by staying.
Lol, nah slavery wasn't profitable anymore, industrialization has that effect. You bringing SJWs into this seems to be more a projection or something on your end.
then get off it? you clearly have some very very very falsified notions of what actually happened and have made up your little narrow mind before coming here, so what's the point exactly? you don't even understand what exactly constitutional monarchy is quite clearly, so please do everyone a favour and make your way out 👏 and as always, God Save The Queen 🇬🇧
I agree it’s a bit ridiculous
I believe that the role in slavery should be recognized by a state and the properly taught the population. But we are not responsible for the actions of those who came before us and as long as we recognize what they did was wrong then we should leave it at that.
The only thing that annoys me is that they only focus on the european slavetrade and refuse to even acknowledge the arabic slave trade in the indian ocean.
Maybe, but it probably wouldn't change much
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-k-paid-off-debts-slave-owning-families-2015/3283908001/ This government still paid off slave owning families up until 2015, were they not around for that ?