Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The English started the slave trade

999 replies

Annamaria14 · 06/06/2020 12:34

I just saw a black American woman post online,

"The English started the slave trade. They caused all our problems, they hurt generations of people. I will never set foot in that country".

What do you think? I felt a bit guilty, because the English did cause a lot of problems around the world. Have we learned from our past. How can we do better in the future

OP posts:
MockersGuidedByTheScience · 09/06/2020 13:06

No the British were not the first to abolish slavery. A lot of people have said that

No they haven't.

The first notable abolition was by Solon of Athens in the 6th century BCE.

The British ended slave trading within the Empire in 1807, and in 1834 freed all slaves in the empire at great expense to the UK taxpayer. Most importantly, the 1807 Act also established the West Africa Squadron which actively suppressed all slave trading be it European or Ottoman, again at great expense to the taxpayer.

Slavery in England was abolished in the fourteenth century, and remained illegal after that, as was confirmed by by Smith v Browne and Cooper, 1704, which ruled that "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free...." and that this had always been the case under English law.

That's waht some people say.

MockersGuidedByTheScience · 09/06/2020 13:14

...Also, the libraries are shut at the moment so I was unable to check the likes of Brogan, Zinn et al, but the suggestion made on Sunday that the US Constitution's reference to three-fifths of a person was in no way racist because the word 'negro' or similar was never used is, on refelction, more than worthy of my neglect to give it an answer, particularly when its purported source was something from the Heritage Foundation, those climate-change denying, Trump-supporting arseheads.

To use an academic expression.

DGRossetti · 09/06/2020 13:30

the US Constitution's reference to three-fifths of a person was in no way racist because the word 'negro' or similar was never

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Quite a masterpiece of fact-bending mind-blending ability of people to work around elephants in rooms.

BovaryX · 09/06/2020 13:37

as this will draw more attention to your cause

dreamingbohemian

Interesting that you call modern slavery your cause indicating that it is not something which you are concerned about. The current fixation on the UK's imperial past will do absolutely nothing to focus attention on the bonded labour of the present. To claim it will is naive or disingenuous.

DGRossetti · 09/06/2020 13:43

Well, thanks to recent events, I've now learned about Leopold II

twitter.com/search?q=%22Leopold%20II%22&src=trend_click

Not a pretty read.

Eveie1966 · 09/06/2020 13:50

The English may have been part of the slave trade, but slaves and the slaving industry has been around since before biblical times. Slaves were taken in wars and traded in Africa before the English even set foot there. The English were one of the first countries to outlaw slaves and slave trading. What may be a result of dragging down statues and erasing the names of slave traders is that in time we forget the horrors that have happened.
"those that cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it"

Puzzledandpissedoff · 09/06/2020 13:51

DGRossetti you're quite right about the Confederacy's own constitution, which is what your Wiki link refers to, but the quote you referenced concerned the original US one

Best, really, not to get confused between the two - the piece I posted last Sunday at 12.50 deals with the differences and background reasonably well

DGRossetti · 09/06/2020 14:08

Puzzledandpissedoff

sorry, I can't quite fathom what you are saying ?

MockersGuidedByTheScience · 09/06/2020 14:29

I quote directy from DGR's link:

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

senua · 09/06/2020 14:45

the piece I posted last Sunday at 12.50 deals with the differences and background reasonably well
It's here, to save you looking back. It seems to be some nonsense about saying there is no racism in making a the difference between 'free people' and 'other persons' whilst blithely ignoring the fact that only blacks seem to fit the definition of 'other persons'. How many white slaves were there?

MockersGuidedByTheScience · 09/06/2020 14:53

There were indentured labourers sent to Jamestown, and the practice continued for some time. These are the "Irish Slaves" so beloved of certain rightwing sites. Once they paid off the price of their passage, they were free to move on as they pleased.

The wider point about the outrage many of us feel about this thread is the misimportation of the US terms of debate when the UK situation is unique. The UK not only freed its slaves, it paid public money to do so and sent the Royal Navy to end the trade forever. No one was ever transported to the UK to be a slave, or if they did they would be made free immediately by English law.

We have our problems. They are our problems. They require our solutions.

Wonderful archive interview on CNN the other day showing MLK Jr explaining what would in time come to be known as 'white privilege.' When penniless east European migrants came to the USA, they were given land. When freed slaves were turned off the plantations, they were forced to become sharecroppers, etc.

As a white working class descendant of the Anglo-Saxon peasantry, I object to being called priveliged in comparison to Kwasi Kwarteng, Bim Afolame and any number of other posh people of colour born into privelige and carried by it seamlessly from Eton to Oxbridge to the Tory benches.

senua · 09/06/2020 14:57

They make the Constitution an object of contempt rather than reverence.
An object of reverence ? What, like tablets of stone handed down by god? You get the feeling it is written by some NRA-nutter fearful that if they start changing the constitution then they might take away his beloved right to shoot his neighbour dead bear arms.

andyoldlabour · 09/06/2020 15:13

"How many white slaves were there?"

The White-slave Traffic Act or Mann Act. The French transported women from Salpetriere Prison to New Orleans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act

BiBabbles · 09/06/2020 15:32

I am still proud to be English. By the way I am surprised at the amount of people on here, who say we must say British not English. Can you tell me why?

If we're referring to the British Empire or it's involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, then yes, you should say British. As has already been explained, just saying English ignores a lot of the people involved. What you call yourself doesn't change that. I call myself Midwestern, but in discussing American history, that's not really relevant most of the time.

Calling the transatlantic slave trade just 'the slave trade' may make sense from an American perspective discussing our own history, but if we're discussing shitty things some British people have done that involves slaves, bonded labour, indentured servitude, and similar, then only talking about the transatlantic slave trade would be ignoring a lot of it. If we say all Brits now need to take responsibility, we're also ignoring how much has changed in populations - not everyone here has or knows of their ancestors that were even part of the Empire, and - as already said - some were enslaved by members of it, or have both enslaved and owners in their bloodlines.

I personally don't have any strong feelings about what my ancestors I did not know did, though to my knowledge, none of them were part of the British Empire as the only European I know weren't British and immigrated to the US after the War of Independence, if only just. I assume, like most people, I am a mix of the enslaved and those that supported, if not benefitted directly from the institution. If anything, I feel more pity for my kin that went through the Korean War and WW1 - I'm sure it was a horrendous time, much as the relative who died in 1918 after months with the flu and all the kids who had to carry on without her. Pride? Guilt? I don't associate those emotions with history and I don't see how they help anyone.

Knowing the impact and horrors of the past and what is being done about the ills of today is important, but I don't think there is any benefit to this idea that we should teach some people that all their ancestors were either horrible bastards that should continuously be apologizing for or poor victims. Pretty much all of us are a mix of those and more.

A lot of people have come to the UK including some of my own ancestors so the UK can't be that bad and people want to emigrate to the USA

And plenty of people emigrate out of those countries, and between those countries. That doesn't really say much about whether a country is 'that bad', just how different people look at their options (and the involvement of either country in the recent affairs of other countries that has pushed people to leave has to be considered). I mean, I would say the Chinese government is 'that bad', but there are plenty of Americans and Brits who choose to live there for various reasons.

CoalCraft · 09/06/2020 15:32

Slavery goes back to prehistory, unfortunately. Probably impossible to determine who the first slavers were.

MyNameIsArthur · 09/06/2020 15:50

I find the slave trade and slavery an appalling and terrible part of British history which I feel ashamed about. How can any nation that sees itself as Christian, or of any faith for that matter, justify it's treatment of millions of humans?

I am definitely not proud of this part of our history. However there were many other nations involved in the slave trade and slavery, not just Britain at this time. Also, the slave trade ended in 1807 and slavery in 1834 so long before any of us were around so can't really blame us for it. Also a big proportion of British citizens during this period were poor and subjugated under a feudal system and then later made to work for extremely long hours in dangerous factories for pittance, so they were not involved in slavery. A minority of people benefited from the slave trade and slavery. My ancestors worked on the land of were loom weavers in factories and not involved in this. The general wealth of our nation did come about from exploitation of other countries and people aswell as exploitation of its own people.

All we can do today though is teach the truth of our country's history and work together with other nations of the world to bring about fairer distribution of wealth, equality and rights of people and improve the living conditions of everyone in the world including everyone in this country as many here also live in poverty.

Sugartitss · 09/06/2020 16:33

@Annamaria14 oh do calm down. No one said you should be hated because you’re English.

Who knows why we never invaded, probably too busy trying to keep the brits out.

Your nationality is English, you are not half Irish.

woodhill · 09/06/2020 16:55

So really the white privilege term is an Americanism?

serenada · 09/06/2020 18:01

@MockersxxxxxxxSocialDistancing

These are the "Irish Slaves" so beloved of certain rightwing sites.

Would you please expand on this? I've heard about work an Irish historian has been doing to separate out the Irish indentured from Afican slaves but why is it an issue on right wing sites? They are using it for what gain?

MockersGuidedByTheScience · 09/06/2020 18:12

serenada

The message from the Breitbarty types is that slavery was all a long time ago and so African-Americans should get over it and stop moaning, just like the Irish did.

thegcatsmother · 09/06/2020 18:37

@DGRossetti

Well, thanks to recent events, I've now learned about Leopold II

twitter.com/search?q=%22Leopold%20II%22&src=trend_click

Not a pretty read.

There were graves in the churchyard where I used to live of some of the Congolese that Leopold bought over to Belgium. The Colonial Palace is at the end of Tervurenlaan, near the Africa Museum, and still much used for balls, meetings, dinners, conferences, events etc.

You might find this an interesting read www.npr.org/2018/09/26/649600217/where-human-zoos-once-stood-a-belgian-museum-now-faces-its-colonial-past?t=1591723818917 and King Leopold's Ghost is worth a read as well.

It is worth noting that some of the African nations are bedding in for another round of colonialism, but this time by the Chinese.

DGRossetti · 09/06/2020 19:01

I'll be honest, it's going to a few days before my stomach has recovered after what I read (and saw Shock) about Leopold II.

I have no words, because there are none.

woodhill · 09/06/2020 19:33

I remember watching a programme about how the Portuguese and Spanish were cruel to the slaves in South America.

thegcatsmother · 09/06/2020 19:42

@DGRossetti

I'll be honest, it's going to a few days before my stomach has recovered after what I read (and saw Shock) about Leopold II.

I have no words, because there are none.

The link is to an article about the Africa Museum in Tervuren which reopened last year after about 6 years closed. I left Belgium for the first time as it closed, and then for the second as it reopened. It's an interesting read.
pinktaxi · 09/06/2020 19:55

You can't change history, you can only change the now.