Slavery and Colonialism Are Everyone’s History

[GodessOfThunder]

I was on a thread recently where posters were complaining of slavery and colonialism being “shoehorned” into exhibitions, and were strongly “pushing back” against it being given prominence as a topic in museums and at historic sites. Indeed, transatlantic slavery and colonialism often seem to be regarded as niche historical subjects of interest more to people of colour, and involving only a small number of rich white slave owners and colonial officials.

This perception however, does not reflect reality. Transatlantic slavery effected not only millions of Africans, but pretty much everyone in Britain too. Similarly, colonialism effected not only millions of subjects in the British Empire, but everyone “at home” also. The economy these projects fuelled changed what ordinary people ate and drank and what they wore. They changed how British people thought about non-European people in ways that continue to shape their mindset and create injustice today. Slavery and colonialism helped fund the Industrial Revolution and the jobs people in Britain performed, and much more too.

I’m not suggesting anyone today should feel guilty for these activities. But, these subjects are still all too often not regarded as part of all of our histories. This means attempts to give them proper prominence are met with resistance. If we are to understand British history at a public level properly there is still a great deal of work to do.

Most people who talk about slavery don't really know the history at all. It wasn't until the British outlawed slavery in the 1800s that the world's history changed - slavery had been a part of every culture and every country on the planet for well over a thousand years, and it was nothing to do with race. Hell, it's not like the Europeans invented it either - slavery was already a thriving economy in Africa when the whites turned turned up there, they just added the "transatlantic" part (and it wasn't even the British who did that, as I recall - it was the Dutch).

The modern British penchant for self-flagellation does get tiresome after a while. Yes, our country has done many overwhelmingly shitty things to others over the centuries, but at least give a passing mention to the good bits too.

I don’t think many people mind about being told that it’s part of our history. I think what people object to is the idea that we’re somehow responsible for the actions of our ancestors, and even more so, that we should somehow atone for those actions.

Could help to make it a bit real for people rather than abstract ‘we all benefitted’: eg My family moved to Liverpool in the 1800s and opened a shop. They almost certainly moved because of the increased prosperity of the city. Slavery significantly contributed to this.

…..But I think a lot of people in the Uk today have very different histories (another part of my family was exiled from another country for religious reasons; another left their original country because of civil war). We need to be careful about presuming everyone traces back to the same sorts of things as the majority

The issue with what you've written is millions of WC people, including children died from malnutrition, inadequate housing and their working life, so want that acknowledged as much as slavery. Indented servants and the workhouses/children in prison were as bad as slavery. Then there's the transportation to Australia etc. It's obscene when you consider that we were once subsidence farmers until our lands were seized , given away (sometimes to vikings etc) or rented back to us. Then cycles of absolute poverty were deliberately created. Personally I think us and the slaves had a common enemy, the divide was deliberate. There's not enough recognition of the plight of the WC, how industry was destroyed etc.

Your attitude is part of the problem that we need to change to get a more accurate understanding of our part.

We don’t not study Britain’s role in WW2 because there have been many wars across millennia involving many peoples, do we? We don’t not study Henry VIII because other countries had kings, or Mary’s persecution of Puritans because other nations persecuted them too. It’s useful context to know what the Dutch or Portuguese were doing and who did what first, but it doesn’t change the importance of knowing about slavery and colonialism to understand British history.

The involvement of Africans is, of course, part of the story. You’re not telling me anything I’m not aware of.

What we learn about history shouldn’t be dictated by balancing “good” and “bad” as anachronistically decided by today’s values. It should have nothing to do with “self flagellation” or self aggrandisement. It’s about understanding the phenomena that have been important. My point is the importance of slavery and colonialism is not yet properly understood in the public domain.

Liverpool's history is complex and while of course it being a port, the slave owners put money into the city, it doesn't start or end there. The way Liverpool was deliberately ground down in shocking. From when Churchill had the naval gunboats pointed at Liverpool to break the will of the strikers in 1911, to Thatcher's attack. Every low wages Merchant Seaman, the dock workers, the miners all built prosperity.

I don't disagree, but wonder whether it's better to re-examine all sorts of underestimated influences and rotate them around different places.

It can put you off to find everywhere you go has been re-examined through the same lens.

You are right though- it does need to stay prominent.

Different types of places lend themselves to different focuses I think, so there should be a variety of fresh takes. If it's done somewhat subtly, it will have more longevity too.

I agree that the more we all learn about history the better.

I watched a documentary recently on the oppression of people in the UK. In mediaeval times more than 75% of people in the UK were serfs and were owned by a Lord. They were not allowed to leave the patch of land that belonged to that Lord and could not marry without his permission. They had to work the land; they were allowed to keep enough to survive on and the rest was handed over to their master.

My nan grew up in Lancashire in a small village around 100 years ago. Along with the other women and many children in her village she went to work in the mill. There was no other choice on offer. 12 hour days were the norm and the family lived in poverty. My nan and many others became totally deaf because of the noise of the machines.

Or we can go back to the Harrying of the North, where a "scorched earth" policy was used by William the Conqueror to kill and starve people in the North of England for resisting his rule. Over 100,000 people died. I didn't ever learn anything about this horrific period at school.

The human race has a long history of such atrocities and examples of the subjugation of the poor. We should all be aware of these.

The transatlantic slave trade is a very nuanced area of history and all nations are party to it - not just the UK. It needs the stories telling but fairly. The general public in Britain at the time were against slavery, many of the military were against slavery (there are many accounts from ships captains reporting back to parliament on the conditions of plantations). It was really only traders and merchants who wanted to keep it running because it was beneficial to them. It was because of these reports and public disdain that Britain was the first to abolish slavery.

The other side of colonialism is unpalatable because it did benefit many countries - but at a huge cost. Britain wasn't the only one operating in this manner - Portugal, Spain, China, France and The Netherlands all had vast empires and were much more brutal in their take over bids. Britain was just different, its success hinged on working with locals, bringing education and technology. The other side of this was it brought Christianity and western morality and some abhorrent actions off the back of this.

It's a fascinating area of history and one that can be shoehorned into every cultures history and through every period of history.

No other piece of history provokes such "whataboutery" as the Atlantic slave trade.

Imagine doing this with any of the horrors of the first or second world war, Khmer Rouge or the Gulags.

It would be considered in very poor taste at the least.

This is worth a watch: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b063db18

I agree. My family are from a country with no empire, no slave trade, no history of invading anyone. I used to think ‘so why am I involved just because I’m mainly white in my heritage’.
I’ve grown to understand that firstly it’s the only way to correct past wrongs, that everyone is invested and willing to learn.
Also I have indirect benefits, and others still have indirect losses. It’s not as simple as ‘well my grandfather wasn’t a slaver’.

There’s no “issue” in what I’ve written in that respect at all.

Yes, I wholeheartedly believe these aspects of working class history should continue to be told. There are some excellent museums, many books and documentaries that do this. And there should be more.

What many people don’t seem to realise though is that history isn’t a zero sum game. We can learn about both. And, they don’t seem to realise that slavery and colonialism are also part of working class British history though. As I wrote above, they had a huge effect not only on the enslaved and the colonised, but on ordinary British people too.

I disagree. Try Irish history. Apparently the island was blessed by English colonialism and being the test bed for English domination.

OP, I somewhat agree but I do think that seeing slavery as a black and white issue ( literally) or as simply about a specific manifestation of the problem diminishes understanding of the lessons of history - or the significance of today.

Whats your point OP? Your rambling post doesn’t get to the point. It is the slavery you mention IS history. It’s not the present, is it?

What is happening in the present is slavery on the African continent today. That is way more important. Not the slavery if the past. People today matter more. Because they are still alive. But that wouldn’t fit your narrative, would it. If you had a coherent narrative.

Colonialism is about more than just slavery and black Africans.

Yours, an Irish person.

Colonialism is about more than just slavery and black Africans.

Yours, an Irish person.

Of course. Ireland (and Wales): the first English colonies.

I had no intent to infer otherwise.

Yes, I agree. When Britain banned slavery throughout its empire, that was a huge deal. We had the largest navy in history, which meant we could enforce the ban pretty much anywhere – and we did. Slavery continued throughout the African and Arabic world, and many African and Arabic people, who were making money from slavery, accepted it as natural and bitterly resented British interference. In the 1840s and 1850s, there was even danger of war between Britain and the USA over this issue, again because we were trying to stamp it out.

There is this bizarre idea that colonialism, empire, slavery, etc, began in 1600 and were invented by Europeans. EVERYONE is guilty. The history of our species IS the history of colonialsm, slavery and empire. Yuval Harari writes that most humans in history lived within an empire. It's the natural mode of organization. Zulus, Aztecs, Egyptians, Incas, Arabs, Mughals, Chinese, Mongols, you name them, they colonised and enslaved others. The barbary pirates enslaved about one and a half milllion Europeans and Americans. In August 1625, for example, there was a raid on Cornwall and 60 local people were abducted and taken to Africa to be sold. Had China or India industrialized first, they'd probably have colonized us.

As for Britain getting rich off the back of colonialism, I'm skeptical. Woke, left-wing historians are doing all they can to make the case, often distorting and exaggerating things in the process. In reality, it was industrialization, science, technology and trade that made Britain rich, not to mention the exploitation of millions of poor white people, huddled in the filthy slums of London and Manchester and Sheffield.

I always felt it a shame that the history I was taught and the exhibitions I have seen gave so little credit to the abolitionists. Britain ending slavery did not happen by accident, it was the work of decades of political pressure by progressive men and women across our country.

William Wilberforce does of course find his way into the public conscience but there were many other wonderful orators and organisers - if you have five minutes, take a read about the redoutable Elizabeth Heyrick.

No one else seems to have had any problems understanding, but here’s the TLDR version just for you:

Transatlantic slavery and colonialism effected not only millions of Africans and colonial subjects abroad, but pretty much everyone in Britain too. Therefore, it’s part of everyone’s history and needs to be given more prominence accordingly.

I find the rest of your post perplexing and, to use your word, lacking in logical coherence. There are terrible wars going on in the world today, but does that mean, say the National Army Museum should be closed down and the funds diverted to peace keeping activities? You are conflating two totally different areas: teaching people history and ensuring human rights today (although that said, actually awareness of the first can help ensure the second).

This is true. The African slave trade was unspeakable but unfortunately it's just one aspect of the overall tapestry. But op, what do you expect people to do? Of course it's important that people are as educated as possible in terms of history but where does it end? What's the point of self-flagellation when you weren't even there? It's important that people treat history with respect but there are limits to how responsible people should feel. I say that as an Irish person. I wish British people were more informed about history but I don't think there's a need for brow beating.

I think it's world history (if it's transatlantic slavery) rather than everyone's.

But "Everyone's" makes it sound personal, like we can all trace our history back to a coloniser or an enslaved person.

What was the name of this doc, please @Lazyusername

I can’t speak about the specific exhibitions you went to as you haven’t named them. But, I think it’s a question of balance. Wilberforce and abolition is traditionally one of the few aspects of slavery many British people have already heard of. It suited elites to propagate this narrative.

Recent exhibitions however, have rightly placed more focus on new knowledge and the victims, of which 3.1 million were transported by Britain. If I went to a Holocaust museum I would find it odd if it focussed too much on those who liberated the camps vs the victims.