The English started the slave trade

[Annamaria14]

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

@Xenia

ISIS pulled down wonderful ancient Syrian structures and I think some buddhist statues too - it is appalling descretation and we want no part in that kind of thing in the UK. Of course if people don't like a particular statue or street name or person they can just look away when they walk down that bit of a street surely.

So in your world nothing ever changes then ?

ISIS blew up Palmyra and murdered the archeologists and guardians/curators who cared for it. Slightly worse than chucking a few statues in the river.

DGRossetti

It was also the UK/US who were the unintentional architects of the 1979 revolution, where the plan was to get the Shah to leave (due to mounting protests) temporarily place "friendly" ayatollahs in charge, then at the right moment place the Shah's son on the Peacock throne.
The good old US/UK "law of unintentional consequences".

^It was also the UK/US who were the unintentional architects of the 1979 revolution, where the plan was to get the Shah to leave (due to mounting protests) temporarily place "friendly" ayatollahs in charge, then at the right moment place the Shah's son on the Peacock throne.
The good old US/UK "law of unintentional consequences".^

(adds to sum of knowledge)

I was less aware of that, thank you. Still my point stands (?). The US in the shape of Obama apologised. The UK hasn't.

I was less aware of that, thank you. Still my point stands (?). The US in the shape of Obama apologised. The UK hasn't

Still my point stands (?). The US in the shape of Obama apologised. The UK hasn't

It seems strange if slavery was discussed and banned and yet no admission that it was wrong took place at the time. Or do you mean no one has apologised in the last few years?

It seems strange if slavery was discussed and banned and yet no admission that it was wrong took place at the time. Or do you mean no one has apologised in the last few years?

I am referring to Operation Ajax, and the UK s role in it.

I thought this was a thread about historical accuracy?

Only if you believe it's historically accurate that the British started slavery before the Mesopotamians, Ottomans, Romans, Egyptians etc and that fits your narrative.

Otherwise it's a reasoned debate/explanation that the OP is incorrect.

I don't think anyone is saying the British "started slavery" it's common knowledge that slavery has existed pretty much as long as humans have been walking the planet.

It IS historically accurate to say that the specfic form of slavery that existed within the USA as a country and society began in the English Colonies. They began to replicate what the British had already created in their Caribbean colonies. There was a fluid period early on of indentured servitude even for Africans but it hardened through law and practice to mean permanent bondage for those of African descent.

For example an early law in 1662 Virgina, which spread to the other colonies changed the English Common Law of a man inheriting his father's property. The new law stated that those born in bondage would take the status of their mother and not their father. Clearly, enslaved men were claiming their white father's property and status and that had to be stopped.

It also meant that men who fathered children with enslaved women no longer had any legal or financial responsibility for them and it encoded rape and sexual abuse of enslaved women with no legal protection for the women or their children.

Law also decreed that violence could be used against enslaved people and if they happened to die as a result the slaveholder or overseer would not be charged with a crime.

Slavery was therefore encoded in law and practice according to strict racial lines by the state. This was 100 years before the American Revolution.

Virginian Slave Laws

Enslaved people's status

There was always a large group of very poor landless people of British and Irish descent from the very beginning of the English Colonies. Many had been brought over as convicts and indentured servants.

They were considered "trash" (an old English word) and waste people. The English class system was ruthlessly replicated in the Colonies and the landless had very little chance of increasing their status. Their descendants still live in the USA in large numbers. Thet are called White Trash and nowadays Rednecks, Hillbillies and the like. Elvis Presley, Bill Clinton and Dolly Parton come from this class of people.

At times they have found common cause with people of colour and at others used White Supremacy to be just as brutal as those in the upper classes. Despite their poverty they were always free to move around and were not subject to Black Codes or Jim Crow laws.

A short explanation of "White Trash"

Slavery is still going on today, yes the British did some awful things but surely we should stop women being trafficked in and out of the UK today? we can’t change our passed but we can change our present and future. What about the selling of humans beings all round the world, shouldn’t we be doing something about that?

Alex50 excellent point.

My DW has echoed your earlier words
@andyoldlabour

I can imagine why your wife's experience has informed her views of this. It has grim echoes of authoritarian regimes, which are being ignored. But she can see those echoes. The rapidity with which London's statuary is being consigned to the dump is astonishing.

@wishingstarr

It IS historically accurate to say that the specfic form of slavery that existed within the USA as a country and society began in the English Colonies. They began to replicate what the British had already created in their Caribbean colonies. There was a fluid period early on of indentured servitude even for Africans but it hardened through law and practice to mean permanent bondage for those of African descent

Slavery takes many forms, but the one characteristic of the Middle Passage trade was, as I understand it, chattel slavery (ie, the slave was considered owned, in the same way that a person might own an animal).

Chattel slavery did exist prior to the transatlantic slave trade ofthe eighteenth century. Venice and Genoa were big centres for example. What the British, French and others did in the eighteenth century was do what had already been done on a much bigger scale, due increased markets and the new ability to sail across the Atlantic (nb: the ability to make long sea journeys is what did for Venice especially). Going further back, the Vikings were huge slavers, capturing people from what is now Russia and selling them into the Middle East. There has been an attempt in recent years to rehabilitate the Vikings but one needs a strong stomach to read how they treated (including sexually exploiting) their slaves.

But contrary to what people say, slavery has never been inevitable and hasn't always been sanctioned by past societies. For example, it didn't exist across most of mediaeval Europe* because the Church forbade Christians from enslaving other Christians. That meant in most of Europe there weren't very many people at all who could be enslaved. And in my view, this is what makes the British slavers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century so awful: a century earlier, slavery was illegal and rare across north west Europe and had been for centuries. So, slavery was not a normal thing for them. The reason why it was considered acceptable was, in my view, pure racial prejudice, and probably also distance between the people actually brutalising the slaves and those who made the money (e.g. Colston).

*Yes I know serfdom existed but whether that was actual slavery is questionable, and in any event it had gone from England by the 1400s.

@DGRossetti

Art goes where it fits in the time. A few of these artistic masterpieces (are they listed in every guide to Britain - our own rival to Michaelangelos David - on Thames ?) are fortunate enough to have survived long enough to see society change around them.

There's lots of old art in museums. And if Britain hadn't nicked quite so much from around the world, there would be room for lots more.

I don't think that museums should become lumber rooms for art that, due to entirely knee-jerk political reasons, has been relegated to League Two, so to speak. If you have the appreciation of art that your username suggests, you ought to accept that one of the things that makes art work is its setting. A statue of some long-dead bloke who was in fact a massive arsehole can actually perform a useful social function in beautifying its locality. If such a statue were to be moved, it reduces the artistic merit of the statue and the beauty of the location. Furthermore, I don't believe that it would be replaced with something that people would like, given the direction that art generally has gone in, that is to say, elitist and obscure. But even if I'm wrong, and public art now is as good as its ever been, that's not an argument in itself for removing any particular statue or monument.

I'm not suggesting that politics doesn't matter at all. You mentioned a Nazi flag, and someone on another thread asked me "what about a statue of Goebbels". Well, my answer to that would be that people who suffered through WW2 are still alive, even a few of the perpetrators are still alive. I'm not aware there are any statues of Goebbels in public anyway (by the way - there are statues of Mao - google is your friend). And my answer would be that it would have to be an absolutely magnificent piece of art to overcome the awfulness and the recentness of the events those things would bring to mind. It is possible though - look at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin or the Milano Centrale railway station. Both are buildings that scream "fascism" and yet I think it's right that they still stand because they are very impressive. I know a building isn't the same as a statue but I think the parallel is a fair one.

Moving statues from plinths into museums seems a jolly good British compromise. Because there are some countries that would destroy them, and there are others that would ring them with armed guards and minefields.

Well, I think that's where the statue of Colston is heading. But I would say that the reason the British haven't destroyed their statues is because for the most part the UK is, comparatively speaking, a country that has been sufficiently well-run not to require all that much civil disobedience.

I come from that class of poor Irish. It's quite interesting to see who is squirming once they realise that demographics is not on their side despite, or more likely because of, how rich and powerful they are.

But contrary to what people say, slavery has never been inevitable and hasn't always been sanctioned by past societies. For example, it didn't exist across most of mediaeval Europe* because the Church forbade Christians from enslaving other Christians.

Which just opens the door for counting angels on pinheads arguments over what constitutes "Christian" - with an ever receding threshold to attain.

And Quakers (amongst others) managed to be Christian without any slavery of any form.

I think there is a reason that there's a stubborn insistence (by some) on trying to frame the slavery debate in a certain way. And that comes down to the fact that slavery is a fundamental part of acquisitive warfare. Most historical warfare arising from a need to get more stuff (i.e. the Roman Empire). Under the banner "might is right", successive empires have expanded and nicked people and resources and land to feed themselves.

If a serious contemporary groundswell should emerge recognising that not only was slavery wrong then, but it's fruits can be traced back (or forwards, depending on your view) thanks to the growing legacy of not only extant, but legally valid documentation, then who knows where it could end ?

And I am not talking ancient history. I am talking the Nazis, whose invasions in pursuit of lebensraum were specifically intended to acquire factories, raw materials and slave labourers for their ghastly plans for domination. That's within living memory. And it's questionable as to how much loot was returned despite having impeccable provenance.

Has anyone thought to interview the Duke of Westminster about his fantastic wealth and where it came from ? That would be an interesting chat.

Wishingstarr

The Portuguese, not the English, started the Atlantic slave trade in 1526, with the first voyage to Brazil. Other European countries followed suite. The first African slaves kidnapped to the British colonies were classed as indentured servans with a legal status equal to Irish and English workers. By the 17th century. In order of trading volume, the countries involved in the slave trade were - Portugal, Britain, Spanish, French, Dutch and Danish.

This absolutely true except if we are talking about the ENGLISH colonies that became the USA the British introduced it, including laws to enforce it. The British imported our knowledge of the British plantations on Barbados, including the slave laws defining enslaved people as property to the English Colonies in North America.

Portugal and Britain accounted for 70% of all Africans forcibly transported to the Americas. Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 when the British slave trade was abolished. Britain transported approximately 3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived). It was through the slave trade that many British port cities became extremely wealthy, especially Bristol, Liverpool and London, under the 1799 Slave Trade Act, the slave trade was restricted to these three ports.

Investment from London continued to fund the creation of plantations in the South right into the Victorian era. We continued to invest in the USA throughout the Black Codes and Jim Crow until the present day. We still invest more money in the USA than any other foreign investor.

DGRosetti the Quakers did own slaves in America, eventually they grew to reject slavery but to begin with they were slaveholders like all other Christians in the Colonies.

"Most Quakers did not oppose owning slaves when they first came to America. To most Quakers, "slavery was perfectly acceptable provided that slave owners attended to the spiritual and material needs of those they enslaved".70% of the leaders of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting owned slaves in the period from 1681 to 1705; however, from 1688 some Quakers began to speak out against slavery."

AndyoldLabour in my earlier post I acknowledged that Africans were initially treated as indentured servants There was a fluid period early on of indentured servitude even for Africans but it hardened through law and practice to mean permanent bondage for those of African descent.

Even once they set foot in England there was confusion about a person of African descents status, until the late 1700s it was assumed they were enslaved until the case of James Somerset. Even then, Black people's status was not clear and they could be enslaved.

"There was a debate about whether black people in Britain could be slaves or not. It was thought that they could only be slaves outside Britain in the colonies (land owned by Britain abroad, such as Jamaica in the Caribbean) and that just setting foot in Britain made them free. However, until the Somerset Declaration of 1772, most black and mixed-race servants in England would have had slave status (that is, they were not free). In 1772, Judge Mansfield had to try the case between James Somerset, a slave who was abandoned in London when he fell ill, and his owner. When Somerset had regained his health, his owner tried to reclaim him and send him back to the Caribbean. The Abolitionists , who campaigned against slavery, took up the case on behalf of James Somerset. With their support the case went to court. The judge decided that owners could not force slaves who lived in England back to the plantations in the Caribbean against their will. This decision was thought by many to mean that slaves in England were free. It did not mean this, but it did mark the beginning of the end of slavery in Britain itself. A slave’s position in the eyes of the law in Britain was still unclear. Even after 1772, there are cases of slaves being returned by force to the Caribbean plantations by their owners, against the legal ruling of the Somerset Declaration."

It's worth noting that the English view of slavery was affected by the legal notion of Habeas Corpus, which is a doctrine from Magna Carta days whereby a person holding another person against their will can be compelled (via a "writ of habeus corpus") to appear before a court to demonstrate that they lawfully hold that person.

It was when the abolitionists served a write of HC on the slaveowner, and the slaveowner tried to claim "I own him" that the slaves imprisonment was declared illegal.

This all matters, because from time to time, the next would be fascist government will suggest "suspending" habeas corpus in the name of law and order. In fact Abe Lincoln did just that in 1863 - one reason why it resonates in the US to this day. (It was suggested in WW2, but I think it never happened. Mind you a lot of Americans found themselves locked up anyway).

And of course the present incumbent has suggested that Habeas Corpus is a nuisance too.

A really good way, for white people to help black people would be to stop flushing all our hard won civil liberties and human rights down the toilet in the name of "law and order".

In the UK that means we should be vigorously defending the UKs part in the European Convention of Human Rights, not allowing successive Home Secretaries to get away with whoppers about it which - if stated in a court of law - would have seen a charge of perjury. And that goes double for the really nasty present Home Sec. Whose attitude to BLM is predictably "I'm alright so you are too."