| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
you are extremely naïve.Originally Posted by DryCleaning
Wasn't it Orwell who said Britain was like a wealthy family that maintains a guilty silence about the sources of its wealth.
Well we will have to disagree about Britain's history being/not being involved with slavery. Funny you should mention the international drug trade though: I was listening to a podcast only last week that was about the UK being second in the international money-laundering stakes due to laxity and a lack or rigour.
https://tinyurl.com/esap732a
"Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade officially began, with royal approval, in 1663. In less than 150 years, Britain was responsible for transporting millions of enslaved Africans to colonies in the Americas, where men, women and children were forced to work on plantations and denied basic rights. This inhumane system led to the emergence of racist ideas and pseudoscience that were used to justify it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain
"British merchants became major participants in the Atlantic slave trade in the early modern period. As part of the triangular trade-system, ship-owners transported enslaved West Africans to European possessions in the New World (especially to British colonies in the West Indies) to be sold there. The ships brought commodities back to Britain then exported goods to Africa. Some plantation owners brought slaves to Britain, where many of them ran away from their masters."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...scale-revealed
"A new BBC documentary tells how a trove of documents lays bare the names of Britain’s 46,000 slave owners, including relatives of Gladstone and Orwell"
"Whereas the cotton plantations of the American south were established on the soil of the continental United States, British slavery took place 3,000 miles away in the Caribbean."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston
"Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, slave trader, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament. Colston followed his father in the family business becoming a sea merchant, initially trading in wine, fruits and textiles, mainly in Spain, Portugal and other European ports. By 1680, he became involved in the slave trade as a senior executive of the Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on the English trade in African slaves. He was deputy governor of the company in 1689–90."
Just a few snippets of "our history" and the slave trade that Britons and Britain benefitted from.
All very interesting but not relevant. For want of repeating myself, Alfresco referred to "this island". If you think the history of this island includes slavery then you are mistaken.
NB just to be clear, no one is disputing the facts around the slave trade in empire. You'll also no doubt be aware of the concept of salutary neglect, and the fact that the UK did not legislate for its colonies or empire in respect of its trade.
I have not said Britain played no part in the slave trade. My comment was that it never occurred on this island, which was specifically referred to.
Has anyone disputed where lots of the UK's current wealth has come from?
You stated "My comment was in response to your claim that slavery was part of UK's history."
It was indeed part of the UK's history - but I see no point in going around in circles.
I'll leave it at that.
is that not part of the UK'S history?
Careful slating Andrew. Didn't work out too well for a bloke in Edinburgh today. Evidently pedos have to be respected after their mum has died.
Slavery was not part of the UKs history. Empire yes, but it was never legal in the UK.
No, as its never been legal, there have been no slave markets and any slave that set foot on British soil was deemed to be a freeman.
Slavery may not have been legal within the UK after the Norman Conquest (although indentured servitude was - and became a sentence of UK courts) but slavery ran through UK history like a seaside name in a stick of rock. Not just the big slave traders and the wealth (over centuries) of ports like London, Bristol and Liverpool - but also the income and interests of vast numbers of ordinary people with a financial stake in ‘the trade’.
It was 100% ‘legal’ for someone living in the UK to invest in and benefit from the Atlantic slave trade. It was therefore absolutely part of the UK’s history. That history would have been dramatically different without ‘the trade’.
To argue otherwise is pedantic nit picking of a ludicrous kind.
Indeed.
If slavery ran through the UK all you need to do is show me where the slave markets were held? The undeniable fact is that no slaves were brought to the UK to be bought, sold or traded. Our merchants may have been involved in the (triangular) slave trade, but the UK was not involved and certainly did not encourage it.
And there is a difference between a debtors/penal colony such as Georgia or New South Wales and slavery. In the case of the former you can work off your debt/punishment whereas in the case of the latter manumission was very rare indeed.
Why are you persisting with this nonsense?
The slave trade enriched cities in Britain (pre UK), it enriched a large swathe of the population (not just merchants and aristocratic investors) and it funded the industrial revolution. You cannot understand the history of Britain without acknowledging the impact of the slave trade. To reduce ‘UK history’ to what was on the statute book at a particular time is plain perverse.
Slavery did not fund the industrial revolution. The UK finance system was way ahead of its time and is why London is still the financial capital of the world. If anyone is talking nonsense, its you.
You'll also need to explain how UK cities got fat off slavery. The Industrial revolution happened in the early 19th century, by which time slavery had been shown to be illegal in the UK and the British government had already taken an active role is stopping the slave trade. By this time the UK had lost its first empire with the 13 colonies forming their own government - a government who turned a blind eye to slavery. The wealth of the UK came not from slavery, but the trading network that was built up via the protection of the Royal Navy.
so imperialism you mean?
No, Imperialism is a political aim. It was mercantilism, then capitalism, which are economic systems (that allowed the UK to flourish).
Keep up, TOBW, old fruit. This matter has raised in numerous posts in this thread. See post #4 in this thread by yours truly.
I thought it was a bit of a development on the subject.
The old 'I'll drop' em a few quid to keep them happy routine?
Yes those bloody NIMBY'sS
Not just about the Royals ""UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), for example, estimates that less than 1% of the country is "built on", about 2% of England.9 Nov 2017
Exactly.
So you don’t know when the industrial revolution started in Britain and you don’t know how Bristol and Liverpool acquired their vast wealth in the eighteenth century. OK.
I haven’t seen so much pig headed pig ignorance since a poster called Feedback (an expert in his own mind on everything) decided to lecture a poster called Goslow (a nasty piece of work but a genuine expert on military history) about the WW2 North African campaign, and spent dozens of thread pages and several weeks making a total fool of himself.
Any chance you know Feedback?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote