Royal links to historical slavery

[Mr Angry 1,569]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65200570
 

One song comes to mind.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The Royals were a different family during the slave trade. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The Royals were a different family during the slave trade. 

Don't bring common sense into it. Also don't ask what the The Kingdom of Benin was doing during the slave trade. Oh, and whatever you do don't ask who sold slaves to Europeans, and if said slave owners also owned slaves. Oh and make sure you don't ask if either the UK or the Middle East had more slaves and which of the two castrated slaves.. And don't look up what the royal navy did about the Barbary pirates after the slave trade was banned.

And most of all don't ask what 40 percent of the UK's treasury's annual income went to from 1835 to 2015.

Edited April 6, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

37 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Don't bring common sense into it. Also don't ask what the The Kingdom of Benin was doing during the slave trade. Oh, and whatever you do don't ask who sold slaves to Europeans, and if said slave owners also owned slaves. Oh and make sure you don't ask if either the UK or the Middle East had more slaves and which of the two castrated slaves.. And don't look up what the royal navy did about the Barbary pirates after the slave trade was banned.

And most of all don't ask what 40 percent of the UK's treasury's annual income went to from 1835 to 2015.

So the slaves were treated badly. Slavery was bad.

[Yellowfuture 71]

The Western World is built on the graves of exploited labour.......shock news!

[NFN FC 1,123]

31 minutes ago, Yellowfuture said:

The Western World is built on the graves of exploited labour.......shock news!

Most of the rest too

[Yellowfuture 71]

1 minute ago, NFN FC said:

Most of the rest too

yep

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

Much as that part of our history is shameful I really don't understand the compensation argument.

King Charles should be very careful. He's not the brightest light bulb in the pack and someone needs to tell him to stick to shaking hands and opening village halls. 

[Herman 9,793]

It was a genocide we were largely responsible for. No amounts of "but, but, they did it too..." or bringing up the Romans/Egyptians will hide that fact. Time for acceptance and a move forwards.

Talk of reparations will lead to a whole host of legal problems. Tread carefully on this point.

[Herman 9,793]

I did hear the worst take on this issue yesterday on Shelagh Fogarty's show. Some fool suggesting that there would be no Caribbean if there hadn't been slavery. A very poor attempt at making it a positive.😬

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

I'm in favour of acknowledging it and reviewing it for historical accuracy, but I reject the notion that this should be the overriding focus of hundreds of years of history or that historical figures should be looked at only through that lens. Is slavery in the Roman empire all people think of regarding Roman history? Spanish history? Portuguese history? The Mongol Empire? Is the slave trading of Africans by other Africans worthy of note?

Should we rethink how Cleopatra is presented? The Caesars?

The British Empire practised slavery, like many other empires. It's a practise that was abolished in the British Empire hundreds of years ago; the British Empire was influential in stamping out the process in other domains. The recent grievance campaign is over the top and mostly a meal ticket for single issue campaigners.

Edited April 7, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

It was a genocide we were largely responsible for. No amounts of "but, but, they did it too..." or bringing up the Romans/Egyptians will hide that fact. Time for acceptance and a move forwards.

Talk of reparations will lead to a whole host of legal problems. Tread carefully on this point.

In 1833 we/the British Empire at the time used 40 percent of its national budget and took out the largest loan in all of history in order to pay for the freedom and release of every single slave across all of the British Empire which took us until 2015 to fully pay off. That sounds like good enough reparations to me..  Funny how nobody talks about this mind, almost like it doesn't fit the narrative.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-k-paid-off-debts-slave-owning-families-2015/3283908001/

 

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

1 minute ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

In 1833 we/the British Empire at the time used 40 percent of its national budget and took out the largest loan in all of history in order to pay for the freedom and release of every single slave across all of the British Empire which took us until 2015 to fully pay off. That sounds like good enough reparations to me..  Funny how nobody talks about this mind, almost like it doesn't fit the narrative.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-k-paid-off-debts-slave-owning-families-2015/3283908001/

 

When the United Kingdom abolished slavery, the government compensated slave owners for the value lost from freeing enslaved people.

So we paid the rich slave owners 'compensation'.

That's not reparations, that's the rich screwing the tax payers yet again.

 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

5 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

When the United Kingdom abolished slavery, the government compensated slave owners for the value lost from freeing enslaved people.

So we paid the rich slave owners 'compensation'.

That's not reparations, that's the rich screwing the tax payers yet again.

 

I'm more on about them paying for the freedom of all slaves in the Empire which very much annoyed Africa and India for obvious reasons.

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

Just now, cambridgeshire canary said:

I'm more on about them paying for the freedom of all slaves in the Empire which very much annoyed Africa and India for obvious reasons.

You're an idiot.

They only reason they paid was so that they could pay themselves for getting rid of slavery which they had already make huge profits from.

Then we ended paying for it.

 

 

[Herman 9,793]

11 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

When the United Kingdom abolished slavery, the government compensated slave owners for the value lost from freeing enslaved people.

So we paid the rich slave owners 'compensation'.

That's not reparations, that's the rich screwing the tax payers yet again.

 

See Richard Drax MP for details and example. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

19 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

You're an idiot.

They only reason they paid was so that they could pay themselves for getting rid of slavery which they had already make huge profits from.

Then we ended paying for it.

 

 

It's no different from nationalising a private utility. You have to pay for the asset. Slaves were an asset at that point in history, so the state paying for them to free them was completely reasonable if you're to protect the principle of inalienable rights to ownership of property, which is a fundament of our legal system.

Edited April 7, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

24 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's no different from nationalising a private utility. You have to pay for the asset. Slaves were an asset at that point in history, so the state paying for them to free them was completely reasonable if you're to protect the principle of inalienable rights to ownership of property, which is a fundament of our legal system.

If you pay for stolen things you don't get compensation.

Slavery was bad.

You're stupid.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

29 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's no different from nationalising a private utility. You have to pay for the asset. Slaves were an asset at that point in history, so the state paying for them to free them was completely reasonable if you're to protect the principle of inalienable rights to ownership of property, which is a fundament of our legal system.

A legal system at that time only benefitted the wealthy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

A legal system at that time only benefitted the wealthy.

That's a separate complaint.

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

50 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's a separate complaint.

Stupid.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

9 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Stupid.

Would you like to engage in conversation or are you just here to call people stupid?

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

Just now, cambridgeshire canary said:

Would you like to engage in conversation or are you just here to call people stupid?

If you say something that's stupid it's only polite to tell you.

Stupid.

[Mr Angry 1,569]

I only started this thread so I had a tenuous excuse to post a great song by one of my favourite bands and I have no strong opinion either way on whether this research is a good idea or not.

But if people can’t see that compensating slave traders/owners for the loss that they suffered as a result of the abolition of slavery was at least questionable, if not morally wrong, then stupid seems to be as good a word as any.

[dylanisabaddog 4,947]

19 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

A legal system at that time only benefitted the wealthy.

Thank God it's not like that now...... 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

On 07/04/2023 at 13:10, Mr Angry said:

I only started this thread so I had a tenuous excuse to post a great song by one of my favourite bands and I have no strong opinion either way on whether this research is a good idea or not.

But if people can’t see that compensating slave traders/owners for the loss that they suffered as a result of the abolition of slavery was at least questionable, if not morally wrong, then stupid seems to be as good a word as any.

It was a two stage process. The legal situation was that slaves were property. I'm effect, slaves were nationalised through compulsory purchase in order for the state to free them and make it illegal to enslave people in future.

What's stupid is making moral judgements over those who lived in an environment where slavery was globally normal and had been throughout human history.

The irony is that the moral absolutes on which historical slavery is judged is at odds with liberal philosophy, which has moral relativism at its core.

Edited April 8, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It was a two stage process. The legal situation was that slaves were property. I'm effect, slaves were nationalised through compulsory purchase in order for the state to free them and make it illegal to enslave people in future.

What's stupid is making moral judgements over those who lived in an environment where slavery was globally normal and had been throughout human history.

The irony is that the moral absolutes on which historical slavery is judged is at odds with liberal philosophy, which has moral relativism at its core.

Slaves were people.

You're stupid.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Slaves were people.

You're stupid.

They were? Damn, I thought they were pigeons

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

They were? Damn, I thought they were pigeons

Stupid.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,752]

Just now, A Load of Squit said:

Stupid.

No you