Slavery Reparations.
Discussion
TEKNOPUG said:
That supposition is simply not true. The importance of the slave trade (inluding tobacco & sugar) to Britain's explosion of wealth and global economic, trading & military dominance cannot possibly be underestimated. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution would not even had occured without the emergence of the slave trade. Sure, money didn't not flow directly to the poor but the wealth created, made everything else that followed possible. It's akin to saying that because I don't work for a bank, I don't benefit from Britian's global finance dominance.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim. I would agree the slave trade benefited some towns in Britain, Bristol and Liverpool, are obvious examples. However, these are only small towns relative to the size of the UK so to suggest slavery had an important economic effect is wrong. As for the industrial revolution I have never heard any one suggest it was the consequence of slavery. Indeed, since the industrial revolution occurred in mainland Britain where slavery had been illegal for some time I do not understand why you suggest this,I understand that much of the wealth of the great houses and hugely wealthy families of the 18th and 19th centuries was as a result of owning large estates in teh New World staffed largely by slaves.
That money was then invested in building business at home helping to provide the cash investment to drive the industrial revolution.
I may understand wrong of course.
That money was then invested in building business at home helping to provide the cash investment to drive the industrial revolution.
I may understand wrong of course.
TEKNOPUG said:
The importance of the slave trade (inluding tobacco & sugar) to Britain's explosion of wealth and global economic, trading & military dominance cannot possibly be underestimated. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution would not even had occured without the emergence of the slave trade. Sure, money didn't not flow directly to the poor but the wealth created, made everything else that followed possible. It's akin to saying that because I don't work for a bank, I don't benefit from Britian's global finance dominance.
Perhaps - but where do the apologies stop? Most societies have at one time or another invaded, been invaded, taken advantage of other civilisations, fought over resources etc.The country we live in today is a product of both the advantages gained at others expense - as well as the setbacks suffered at the hands of others.
How do you untangle this history and decide who should apologise for what?
TEKNOPUG said:
That supposition is simply not true. The importance of the slave trade (inluding tobacco & sugar) to Britain's explosion of wealth and global economic, trading & military dominance cannot possibly be underestimated. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution would not even had occured without the emergence of the slave trade. Sure, money didn't not flow directly to the poor but the wealth created, made everything else that followed possible. It's akin to saying that because I don't work for a bank, I don't benefit from Britian's global finance dominance.
The Europe-wide famine of post Waterloo 1817 has nothing to do with the slave trade or wealth in the country - not sure how you have made that leap.
I like your understated style.The Europe-wide famine of post Waterloo 1817 has nothing to do with the slave trade or wealth in the country - not sure how you have made that leap.
Prior to the slave trade (and sugar plantations in the Windies) the UK had - at times - been pretty wealthy, iirc. Abraham Darby would have gone ahead with his experimentation without the slave trade - he may have found financial backing more difficult but to say - definitively - that it would never have happened sounds rash. We had a navy, we had organisational abilities, and we were ready to exploit opportunities.
Portugal apparently had a bigger slave trade. Where did it invest all that filthy lucre? And does Brazil ask for reparations (it may - I have no idea)?
TEKNOPUG said:
That supposition is simply not true. The importance of the slave trade (inluding tobacco & sugar) to Britain's explosion of wealth and global economic, trading & military dominance cannot possibly be underestimated. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution would not even had occured without the emergence of the slave trade. Sure, money didn't not flow directly to the poor but the wealth created, made everything else that followed possible. It's akin to saying that because I don't work for a bank, I don't benefit from Britian's global finance dominance.
The Europe-wide famine of post Waterloo 1817 has nothing to do with the slave trade or wealth in the country - not sure how you have made that leap.
Sorry not to be clear. I'll say it more simply. The poor, like me and the majority of people in this country, and Ireland, received no benefits from the slave trade. 'We' starved, had high levels of infant mortality, had untreated treatable diseases, and kids were put to work from the age of 6, and that before 1817 or any other arbitrary date you car to mention. The Europe-wide famine of post Waterloo 1817 has nothing to do with the slave trade or wealth in the country - not sure how you have made that leap.
'Britain's global financial dominance' did bugger all even for my father, who was the last of 18 children (that's not counting those who died before being toddlers), and who was brought up in a two roomed basement flat. Millions of others were in similar circumstances. My ancestors got no benefit from the slave trade and precious little from the industrial revolution.
I was served all the bull about how great Great Britain was when it ruled the waves, but a few books on the histories of the lives of the majority in this country soon put me right.
Much is blamed on Trevelyn for the Irish deaths in the potato famine, and quite rightly, but it was the general belief of the haves that the poor brought starvation on themselves.
A few benefited from the slave trade, but not my family. As for the industrial revolution being of benefit to the population as a whole, it's another, very long thread, but the life expectancy of the workers dropped after it started.
You use the word explosion, but that is well wide of what actually occurred. An explosion brings up images of money going everywhere. It didn't. The rich, or rather some of the rich, got richer, a few from the middle classes became rich and a very few from the working class, with a bit of mechanical ability, got rewarded. But, in the main, the money, wealth and power was controlled.
Where I was brought up you could tell the old blokes by their bandiness. Rickets was alive and well after WWI. My father's brothers, and some sisters, were forced to steal food and my father used to get coal by fair and foul means. That's your 'everything else that followed'.
If there had been no slave trade, I'm not sure that my family, nor others of their ilk, would really have noticed.
There it is, simple and true.
Ooooh, and me! I want some cash, too, if handouts are being given out. My ancestors were removed from the Scottish Highlands during the Highland Clearances and decamped to Ireland - just in time for the Potato Famine (we're a lucky bunch). Who do I sue? I know, the damned Englis.... oh, er, hold on... that's me. 
Mrr T said:
Do you have any evidence to support this claim. I would agree the slave trade benefited some towns in Britain, Bristol and Liverpool, are obvious examples. However, these are only small towns relative to the size of the UK so to suggest slavery had an important economic effect is wrong. As for the industrial revolution I have never heard any one suggest it was the consequence of slavery. Indeed, since the industrial revolution occurred in mainland Britain where slavery had been illegal for some time I do not understand why you suggest this,
Liverpool generated more tax revenue than London in the slave trade era and was the biggest contributor to the treasury. The use of slaves in American colonies drove the price of cotton down. Cotton replaced wool as the preferred cloth. The mechanization of cotton production and the profits from the export of the cloth powered further investment in technologies. It was so successful that Manchester became the biggest contributor to the treasury. Jasandjules said:
They may wish to consider suing the many African nations who procured the slaves and handed them over to the white chaps with ships.....
that's wacist!!! It's only whity's fault. The good old African kingdoms never bought and sold slaves - no siree they did not! They were forced to give their own people into servitude and didn't gain anything. The only reason that England stopped slavery was because of the brave efforts of our African ancestors who stopped The Arabs? Oh no they never indulged in that evil practice, in fact any hint that they still do is further proof of racism you b
ds!!That woman makes Jamaica look like a backward thinking nation, something I never considered them to be before. They always just seemed like a really happy nation to me. Complete waste of time too calling for reparation, nearly all the countries in the would could do that to the UK if you think far enough backwards.
REALIST123 said:
55palfers said:
I reckon we need to open a case against the Romans....
Exactly. Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? 
. They're all turning in their graves at the potholes!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff