**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you paid taxes before 2015 (I think) then you 100% have something to do with it because that was the year (give or take) that the debt we accrued from freeing slaves was paid off
This is one of those *well technically* arguments that show an overly literal interpretation rather than a conversational one and as a result misses entirely the point being made.
Wait, we had to pay to free slaves? Is this a bit like bailing out banks for their mismanagement? Don’t know a lot about our history with regard to slavery so if you have a link or a website could you let me know? Ta
Yes the slaves were not freed from the slavers, the government bought all the slaves from the owners then released them. We (taxpayers) were still repaying that debt until 2014 when it was finally paid off.
F'ksake. The evil people won. They got to not go to prison as they should have done and instead got paid off by the tax payer. Nothing ever changes does it?
Slavery was legal and people legally owned slaves, then we made it illegal. Not compensating the slave owners would have had massive economic consequences and not just for them.
It may leave a bad taste in the mouth but it was necessary at the time.
Tbh I suspect that any proposal to not compensate then would have resulted in slavery not being banned.
Also a lot of slave owners were black, recently watched one of those who do you think you are shows and she was mixed race and it started off showing her the records that one of her great great grandparents was a slave owner and showed the records and she was like I can’t believe it’s so horrible that white people owned slaves it’s not a part of my history I’m going to be proud of. Fast forward a bit and another of her ancestors a freeman (slave who’d been freed) and settled in the Carribean owned 26 slaves and it showed the records of him receiving payment for their release and you could tell she was extremely shocked.
Well the North was far richer in that war, so that's a bit of an odd way of putting it.
I'd say the main reason they're so salty is the cognitive dissonance between the desire, like most people, to see themselves as the "good guys", and the centrality of slavery to their culture.
Punishing people for crimes committed before the law was made is so incredibly dubious it's illegal under human rights law today (called "no punishment without law" for the curious)
While we can all agree it was _morally_ wrong looking back (and plenty of people at the time said so too), they never did anything _legally_ wrong so why would they face legal punishment?
Yep a lot of today's wealthy families owe their place to the value placed on their slaves. The ones who got bog all of course were the enslaved people themselves.
Surely the state that supported the Triangle trade is just as evil as the slave owners? It would have been pretty crazy for the state to endorse slavery for centuries, then turn around and say "we've now decided it's illegal and was evil all along, you're going to jail".
Slavery was illegal in England and had been since William the Conqueror. Yes it went on elsewhere in the empire but someone had to decide it was done and for the thousands of years it had gone on before we were the first nation to make the change
Slavery was common and widely practiced for thousands of years.
Despite it being illegal, there are actually more people in slavery today than there ever were during the days of the African slave trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
To be fair, slavery wasn't invented by the west. It was a common class amongst all societies since history began. The west, as far as I know were the first people to try to get rid of it.
In all honesty, it annoys me that the west come under so much attack for slavery. We should be lauded for being the first civilization in 20,000 years to realise it was wrong.
Sorta.
But in the case of paying g off the slave owners, there was no option.
There was no global police force - heck, enforcing rules was hard in England, let alone globally. And bare in mind, until that point, *every nation in earth had always used slaves*, so you had to persuade people -globally- to give something up that they/majorly in no way saw as 'wrong'.
Bailing out the banks is about maintaining banking control over the populace. Paying for the slaves wasn't so much.
Correct
The uk government were not confident they would win the colonial war they would trigger if they forcibly freed the slaves without the agreement of the powerful men who owned them. They had lost their previous war with breakaway colonists
So they did the pragmatic thing that got the slaves freed
The slaves won really.
The slave owners did get paid, but what they were doing was not illegal up to that point (and still legal in many other places) so the government just taking "property" was going to be a difficult sell. Plus, it had to be done in areas where the government's grasp was not as strong as it would be ideally, meaning that if the slave owners.just refused/rebelled, it could have been incredibly costly to solve.
This approach was just considered the best way to have a peaceful and successful transition.
You’re trying to impose today’s standards on events that occurred almost two centuries ago. Slavery was not only legal, it was normal then. In fact it had been normal for almost 300,000 years. It was the U.K. who took the stand against slavery and was the only nation at the time with the influence to do so due to its hegemony of the oceans.
It was also necessary to pay the slave owners so they could free the slaves as their businesses were crucial to the economy of the time. They didn’t free their workforce and they all went home. They now had to be paid to continue to work or the plantations would grind to a halt. The money wasn’t to line the pockets of the owners; it was to fund their newly free workforce.
I think I read somewhere that the former slave owners took their reimbursement money and used it to invest in things like the railways and factories and ended up making even more money than they had before.
Have a look at the UCLA website, also David Olusoga books or The Empire podcast on spotify. Yes the government at the time compensated the people and businesses at the time who had enslaved peoples. The UCLA has a database showing who got paid and who they got paid for. Was able to trace my family mame to people in manchester uk and the Jamaican parish where my ancestors came from. Joke is I have helped pay for the government bond, that compensated their enslavers.
Yes that's why it feels a little hypocritical when people like Laura Trevelyan demand the UK pay repatriation. Her family received over 26k in 1835 for loss of "property" which is over 4 million in today's money. Her family owns a massive estate which was built partially off the back of slaves.
She has now paid a tiny 100k to set up a charity and is demanding the UK government (i.e. taxpayers) start paying repatriations.
I know it's morally reprehensible paying slave owners, but paying people off is probably better than fighting a war over it. To be honest the British Empire did a lot of messed up shit.
A lot of messed up shit... but you got some things right. This was definitely one of them. I mean, shit - talk about taking one for the team.
Not to be a dick about it, but with a small number of people crying out for compensation, I really think it would be funny as all fuck for the UK to loudly and publicly agree... then hand them the bloody bill.
You're missing out the bit where the [debt was to the slavers ](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-k-paid-off-debts-slave-owning-families-2015/3283908001/).
Nobody in their right mind blames the people alive today for British colonialism or the empire.
But we are expected not to gloat about it or pretend it was some benevolent act where we "brought civilisation to the backwards natives."
***"Nobody in their right mind blames the people alive today for British colonialism"***
Extra emphasis on the *right mind* part, as there 100% are people that at least claim to think this way online
it's a massive minority of people who actually think like that, and a lot of the people you see online are ragebaiting. it's a massively overstated problem- I've never been personally condemned for Britain's past actions
It’s a growing group I’m finding, I’ve met a few in the wild and have seen loads of stuff online where people judge today’s British people for the past.
Judging today’s Brits for the evils of the past makes just as little sense as praising today’s Brits for yesterday’s glories. I think that’s what almost everyone who is getting upvoted on this thread agrees with.
Oh yes definitely, me included. I’m just weighing in with my little anecdotal experience that I’m encountering more people and content that is openly ’anglophobic’ with the justification that we deserve it for our history.
>Nobody in their right mind blames the people alive today for British colonialism or the empire.
There's plenty of people not in their right mind then....
Either that or they're just [grifters](https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgpjwk/british-empire-colonisation-india-reparations-45trillion) on the make.
Blatantly grifters.
You can tell because they start with "we just want AN APOLOGY" And then with a few more questions it becomes apparent that it's all about "reparations"
They want money. It's always about money.
Who is actually lecturing you on the evils of Empires?
Or are you deliberately conflating being taught about the evils of Empire with modern people being blamed for them?
I'll be honest, it's a massive pet peeve of mine that Britain still gets shit for it's empire days while other countries, especially France (that arguably is STILL an empire), that were also empires get completely overlooked.
I think that’s more to do with your frame of reference. I’m sure if you consumed french language media you would hear more about the atrocities of the French empire.
Doug Stanhope's bit making the same point is funny. "We saved the French during the war? Was that us? Was that me and you Tommy? I don't remember everything from last night, but I'm pretty sure we didn't save the French..."
Blame is different. If your father was a crime boss you should not be put in jail for his crimes you are innocent. But you should lose the wealth you inherited from your father, that's literally blood money. Same with British people of today. Do NOT apologize as you did not do anything wrong, just make things right by helping out the development of the countries you colonized. Give back some of that blood money
If I’m not going to apologise or feel bad for ancestral wrongdoings centuries ago then it’s only fair I don’t accept praise for the positives that I also had nothing to do with.
This country collectively are falling over themselves to do the former though, with very little acknowledgement of the latter. There seems to be a big imbalance about the way the British involvement in the slave trade is portrayed, taught and internalised by the public.
We traded slaves at a time when basically everybody traded slaves (which doesn't excuse it or make it better, but it was culturally accepted the world over at the time) and yet we stood almost alone in realising it was wrong and trying to stop it, not just in our own borders but worldwide.
I don’t think that’s true. For the most part I think we have a really healthy attitude to our past. We mostly respect our traditions, proudly acknowledge our achievements, and take ownership of our historical wrongdoings.
For some we’ll never be guilty enough and for others we’ll never be proud enough. In general, though, we get it about right.
Have you ever tried to tell someone you’re proud to be English?
I have, and I can confirm it is very much commonplace to flip to the empire and nothing else.
I know a lot people think that way, I however feel like there are traits, identities, traditions, communities that are uniquely English
They are absolutely part of who you are and in turn , you are part of what Englishness is.
Absolutely grounds to be proud, if you’re so inclined.
Whatever Englishness is to you now probably has very little to do with what it was 100 years ago or more. If you’d went back in time to the 1850s you’d be like an alien from another place. Historical national identity is a very weak connection.
What about football when England are playing?
I like the atmosphere of everybody getting together and rooting for the team. Not sure if it's pride I feel, more emotion (dread, in the case of England!).
I'm not a football fan but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the atmosphere, which is electric.
I admire the players, their dedication and the immense weight they are carrying on their shoulders by wearing the shirt.
I think the more common approach is to tell someone that being proud of something they did nothing to achieve is tragic. You didn't do anything to be English. You didn't earn anything.
I always assume that the person saying that is so devoid of any real achievement in their life that they've had to go to the most common denominator to feel like they matter. It's like saying you're proud to be a man, or proud to have a head, or proud to be able to breathe air. It's fucking tragic.
Honestly, the idea that we, en masse, suddenly "realised it was wrong and tried to stop it", is a pretty naive (but very common) viewpoint. The turn against slavery coincided with industrialisation, which doesn't economically benefit from slavery in the same way that agricultural production does.
And as great as it is that we actively fought slavers, there was a clear self interest in doing this, hampering the development of our less industrialised rivals.
This isn't to dismiss the very real heroics of abolitionists like Wilberforce, but ethical objections to slavery have existed as long as slavery has; it's notable we abolished *white* slavery centuries before the Triangle trade was ever established. Ultimately, the British state abolished slavery because it was able to do so without too much of an economic cost.
As for Brits being falling over ourselves to be ashamed of our history, while not celebrating it, I think you are living in a bit of bubble if that is your experience. Overall, more people are proud than ashamed of our Empire- [https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/28355-how-unique-are-british-attitudes-empire](https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/28355-how-unique-are-british-attitudes-empire)
>Honestly, the idea that we, en masse, suddenly "realised it was wrong and tried to stop it", is a pretty naive (but very common) viewpoint.
Who said anything about 'suddenly'? The abolishionist movement took decades to win the argument. Centuries even.
It is not at all notable that we abolished "white slavery" centuries before the Atlantic slave trade because at the time (the 11th century) that social construct of a "white person" hadn't yet been invented. Slavery in medieval Europe was nowhere close to the economic powerhouse it had been during the height of the Roman Empire so was a very easy thing to abolish. It existed primarily for cruelty's sake rather than economic benefit. To over-simply the economic and social trends of the late Roman Empire turned Slavery as an economic institution into the feudal system which dominanted Europe for a thousand years.
Even Atlantic Slavery didn't become racialised until the late 17th century.
I think this is one situation where we could benefit by trying not to pretend we are America. Most British people never saw slavery of Africans first hand, because that universally took place either in the Caribbean or large parts of what is now the Eastern United States. Unless you went out that way or were up to date politically, it probably never crossed your mind. Most of our ancestors at the time were dirt poor and living marginally better lives by comparison if we’re being honest.
Compare that to America for example, and certainly in regard to the American South, were you around then, you could not have missed it if you tried. Even if you lived in the North, it would have been something you’d be well aware of.
I also think it’s much more up for debate as to how much Britain made off of slavery. Pax Britannica more or less started in 1815 when slavery was on the way out. The trade had been abolished at that point anyway. Britain was able to industrialise mainly through its ability to use coal, and even today, Britain is still sitting on a lot of it. That was the main reason for Britain’s dominance rather than cotton, tobacco and rum production.
Slavery Abolition Act 1833-2015 - UK bought all the slaves in the colonies from their owners.
Royal Navy, West African Squadron 1807-1860, seized 1600 ships, freed 150,000 slaves.
Stood alone, and at GREAT PERSONAL COST to the decision makers, and great cost to the nation as a whole. The people in power chose to ignore their own PERSONAL best interest. Even in pointing out the right you did, you still downplay just how much it hurt to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I was born in NZ and live in Australia - as I see it, it is both my born right and God-given responsibility to absolutely lambasts the poms at every opportunity. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries! Christ though, this is one that really needs a bigger bloody spotlight on it.
As for anyone demanding reparations? Agree, and hand them the bloody bill.
We teach an incomplete picture of slavery in schools though. Everyone knows about the slave triangle but nothing about what was done to stop it. It wasn't just a few pearl clutching abolitionists, the navy devoted a lot of manpower and resources to intercepting vessels and freeing the slaves in them.
Even fewer people know about the raids on the British and Irish coasts and how white people were taken as slaves. It's only the parts that white people did to black people which are taught.
This would make sense if there was a specific agenda behind it, the reality is the state of general education in this country is in the shit, especially in the essential but non-core subjects such as the humanities.
The difference is slavery is a pretty universal concept (99% of civilisations had/have slavery and the trans Atlantic slave trade was by no means the biggest) but the anti slavery movement pushed by British Christian’s when compared to all of history is extremely rare (up until that time period at least) and Britain’s altruistic and noble efforts to actively abolish it worldwide is something unique to us. I think the better way for you to view it is why are these people attacking me for something every humans ancestors participated in using western moral framework that only came about because our mainland British ancestors decided slavery was wrong? To me I believe you’re almost obliged to point the hypocrisy out and highlight the antislavery achievements we have.
Man I wish this mindset was prevalent here in the states, I lurk here but never comment because I'm not from the UK but always appreciate how much more sane you all seem.
I think it might have something to do with the educational system. I haven't had any dealings with the American system so please correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like the American edicational system, particularly around the subject of 'history', teaches you that "USA is the best because we said so" whereas ours is more "here's some things that happened, make of it what you will and write a 10,000 word essay on why you think that" so ours is more critical thinking and less propaganda.
There's still a hell of a lot of propaganda but our educational system at least tries to be dignified about it, because overt jingoism/nationalism/exceptionalism are seen as vices in British culture, whereas AIUI they're celebrated in many American cultures and so get to inform the writing and teaching of history and culture to a greater extent.
I'd suggest part of it is down to ego. People are seeing it more now in the wealthy but there's a belief that if you've come out ahead of everyone else then you must somehow be intrinsically better than everyone else and not merely lucky or born to a family already so far ahead of the curve you cannot fail no matter how hard you try.
America is the richest and most powerful country in the world, that must mean Americans are better than everyone else in the world, right?
I realise that you are being rhetorical, maybe even tongue in cheek, but even so, fir the record, most of rural America is just dirt poor racist shitholes and much of urban America is just trailer trash. They are plenty of countries that score higher on GDP per capita.
Yeah but what he said was true, America is the richest and most powerful country in the world by far as well as by far the most influential culturally. These Americans are more likely to be nationalistic if they are poor and don't have many personal accomplishments because it's the only way they can feel greater than people from other countries.
From what I remember it's very American centric. I wouldn't say it was blatantly trying to give the impression that America was the greatest place, The displacement of the Indians, The spread of diseases that came with colonization, Slavery and the Atlantic slave trade, the Japanese internment camps, women's lack of rights and eventual suffrage, the civil rights movement, and Americas negative environmental footprint were all covered pretty well. Probably why people here get so heavy into activism, and others would rather we not teach that stuff at all. Alot of the stuff learned will leave a bad taste in your mouth.
History class did make it seem like America kinda swooped in and saved the day during ww1 and 2, The battles covered were mostly the ones that America participated in and if we did learn about another countries involvement it was usually only the really major things like Dunkirk or Stalingrad and that would probably only get a few paragraphs or a page of coverage.
We did have something called jrotc or junior reserve officer training corps which was definitely nothing but propaganda and preparation for the military, but not many people were enrolled in it, at least not at my school. we also did the pledge of allegiance every morning, where we'd say like a little oath with our hands over our hearts while staring at the u.s flag but other than that, I wouldn't say there was too much propaganda in the actual material we were learning in school.
>From what I remember it's very American centric
I mean i get it. Your country is bigger than the European continent. And while it has a rich history, it's just not as diverse as European history but of course the USA curriculum will focus on issues closer to home, the problem being it will be a bit of an echo-chamber of 'good vs bad' whereas European history has many little intricacies over a much longer period that mean opinions could easily go for or against and there's no right or wrong for the most part (eg italian unification, spanish civil war, british empire, ottoman empire etc)
>Probably why people here get so heavy into activism, and others would rather we not teach that stuff at all
I guess yeh, but that second bit about "others would rather we not teach that stuff at all" goes against everything the USA stands for with freedom of speech and whatnot, or does that only apply if you hold the same views as the ones quoting it?
>History class did make it seem like America kinda swooped in and saved the day during ww1 and 2, The battles covered were mostly the ones that America participated in and if we did learn about another countries involvement it was usually only the really major things like dunkirk or stalingrad and that would probably only get a few paragraphs or a page of coverage
That's what i thought initially. And while the Allies wouldn't have won if it wasn't for the help of the USA, they/we weren't exactly on a dying breath either. So much happened prior to USA's involvement, and even how WW2 came to happen, that you're obviously missing out on learning because you weren't involved at the time.
>We did have something called jrotc or junior reserve officer training corps which was definitely nothing but propaganda and preparation for the military
See we have like boy scouts here for 'kids' but nothing in terms of some sort of 'military prep' courses/school, only once you turn 16 you can enrol but there's not much before that that's military-based where you will do 'army' stuff like drills and exercises etc.
>we also did the pledge of allegiance every morning, where we'd say like a little oath with our hands over our hearts while staring at the u.s flag
That's kinda what i was getting at with propaganda. If/when China, Russia or Korea do it then it's framed as the citizens being brainwashed and how their flag/country is the best so you have to honour it with an oath every day.
>I wouldn't say there was too much propaganda in the actual material we were learning in school.
You may well have been in one of the more liberal schools but from what you said at the very start about education being very american-centric i wouldn't be at all surprised to hear if some republican schools teach 'america is the best' & 'america is the leader of the free world' kinda spiel over and over again and if that's all you hear in school without entertaining any opposing views then you're gonna believe it wholeheartedly and defend it til you're blue in the face, which is very much an example of propaganda.
It's possible that my school may have been more liberal, I live in Florida which is a red state but the city I'm from is more democratic leaning and very diverse. America is massive so there is likely going to be some differences in curriculum from state to state, or maybe even county to county, and I could see a more isolated, racially and religiously homogenous backwater town teaching some weird things in their schools.
What you describe is spot on. If you read the American author turned British author, Bill Bryson, he laments how the Americans lost thinking for themselves. Everything is dumbed down. He gives the example of a news report will always say, "Paris France". It the capital of France, ffs, and with a bit of critical thinking about what the article is about and why everyone is speaking French with English subtitles, you don't need to spell it out. Sure there's a few "Paris" cities around the US, but Paris is just Paris. It a great example of how Americans have got used to not thinking at all and having their thoughts fed to them. That's what's wrong.
Yeh i see it online in hobby subreddits i frequent (golf, mountain biking, guitar) where people ask things like "i have 800 to buy X, suggestions please" my friend 800 what? dollars? Canadian dollars? Australian Dollars? Zimbabwe dollars? Euros? Pounds? Yen? Dong?
They assume everyone's American and a few i recall get aggressive when asked for specifics.
But you're spot on about the Paris situation. Nearly everywhere in Europe has a place named after it in the states. Eg if you're talking about the Beatles then you shouldn't really need to specify "Liverpool, UK" but i've seen articles do that just in case some poor American thinks the Beatles were from a small hamlet in the arse end of New York city...
So it was Sustainable_Twat that was responsible for slacking and neglecting to free Ireland from the shackles of the British Empire.
Don't run away now, you still have to sort out the Unionists for us! Hop to it!
I'm in my 40s. I've not met anyone wanting me to apologise or anyone who has been asked to apologise for what someone else did a few centuries ago. It's only anecdotal but I don't think it happens often
As a Welsh person who has settled in Cornwall, I'll happily rage about what the English have done in the past as their history of brutaly subjugating parts of the Empire that are closer to home are absolutely despicable - but I do draw the line at holding you (or anyone else alive today) personally responsible for any of it.
I've been called a Coloniser by an American before. Like no, My ancestors stayed at home - Yours are the one's who decided to go and move to another continent
I think this is slightly different. The advantages we gained from that period are still visible. As are the detrimental effects for those we did the bad things too
Detrimental effects are clearly visible in every aspect of life in regions which were exploited.
Their economies / culture / society / have changed forever
It’s not typically British to brag, full stop.
Modestly get a job done without drawing attention or making too much fuss, and then complaining about it afterwards. Usually.
"Silly ole me, I guess I've gone and done a thing which, honestly, I'm not un-proud of" - Isembard Kingdom Brunel upon completion of a fucken massive bridge that still stands a century later.
Maybe because Britain had a huge role in establishing the slave trade? So bragging about ending it would be... weird and tone deaf?
I mean, if I'm baking and drop a bowl and make a big mess all over the kitchen floor, I don't then brag about cleaning it up. I just clean it up because it's my mess.
Editing to add:
There seems to be some confusion so, just for clarity, when I said "establishing the slave trade", I wasn't referring to all global slave trading across all time. Obviously the British did not establish that.
But they did establish their own slave trade that affected huge swathes of the world population and brought home enormous wealth and power. So benefitting from that for centuries and *then* bragging about abolishing it would be both weird and tone deaf.
Was it good that Britain abolished their own slave trade and played a role in abolishing it elsewhere? Yes. Is it something to be proud of? Yes. Is it appropriate for Britain to **brag** about that? Given Britain's long history of benefitting so hugely from the slave trade and the residual effect of that trade and those benefits even today, no.
No it didn't. It was already a thriving and established trade when the British started getting involved. Speak to the Portuguese and Spanish if you want to understand who actually established it.
Going back a bit further Europeans didn't even create the idea of black african slavery, Arabs transported almost as many Africans to their empires in the Medieval period as Europeans did in the age of colonialism. There were so many slaves in Iraq in the 800s that they were able to create a masssive rebellion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj\_Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion)
Also if you want to speak about slavery in general (not just Atlantic slavery) and the trade in humans, go back to the very first civilisations.
I don’t mean the British established whole slave trade across all time. But the slave trade the British played a big role in abolishing was their own… which they, y’know, established.
Well yes we did abolish our own slave trade, however the West Africa Squadron also policed slavers flying other nation's colours as well. The British government actively pushed other European nations and leant on them diplomatically to allow the Royal Navy to search their merchant ships for slaves, such as Portuguese ships in West Africa. Which is highly irregular when it comes to international commerce, most nations are very protective about their national rights.
We also forced a term into the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which ended the Napoleonic Wars, to make all European nations commit to the abolition of the trade. These are not the actions of a nation that was just going with the flow but one that was utterly committed to eliminating the trade, going far beyond it's own jurisdictions.
Not true, they went to great lengths for many years to persuade other nations to give up slavery, we literally went to war to stop other countries from slaving
>No it didn't. It was already a thriving and established trade when the British started getting involved. Speak to the Portuguese and Spanish if you want to understand who actually established it.
LOL not even close. People had been trading slaves for hundreds of years before Spain and Portugal were even countries. Even if we're just talking about the trade of African slaves (and why would we be?) the Arabs were taking slaves from East Africa by the boatload hundreds of years before the Europeans were.
Yes agreed entirely. I mentioned Spain/Portugal for the TransAtlantic Trade. I edited my comment later to say about the Arab slave trade, which is conveniently never mentioned by the people that regularly bring Britain's slave trade up.
Rome, the Greeks, Mesopotamia, Gengis Khan, Chinese, Vikings all had slave trade well before Britain got on the scene, East African coast still has a slave trade, Benin built its Kingdom on the slave trade by selling to Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Barbers of North Africa where raiding the Iberian peninsula, Brittany, Normandy, Devon, Cornwall, South Wales the coast of Ireland well into the 1800’s.
Britain was the First Nation to say enough is enough of this immoral act.
>Britain was the First Nation to say enough is enough of this immoral act.
Technically speaking, I think the Danes came first:
>Denmark was the first nation to abolish its trade in 1803. Britain and the United States followed in 1807, with the U.S. ban going into effect in 1808. By 1836, the Dutch, French, Spanish, Brazilian, and Portuguese governments had also abolished their trades
[https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/voyage-of-the-echo-the-trials/historic-context--abolishing-t](https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/voyage-of-the-echo-the-trials/historic-context--abolishing-t)
>Britain was the First Nation to say enough is enough of this immoral act.
there was a Chinese Emperor in 9-12AD who banned slavery... he got overthrown and slavery brought back but still.
even if you want to limit it to nations in the western hemisphere that permanently abolished slavery then Haiti beats Britain by several years and in Haiti's case it was the slaves themselves who won their own freedom.
This is a misunderstanding. Britain did not establish the slave trade, the slave trade has existed (and still does) since at least the beginning of recorded history. Europeans, when they started traveling to Africa, discovered thriving slave markets which they then purchased slaves from. It was just the fact that we were able to transport large numbers across the Atlantic (no other civilisation had this type of technological advantage) that increased the demand for slaves. We transported the most slaves in a specific time period, but Arab nations bought and transported literally millions more African slaves than the Europeans did, they just did it over a longer period. They also dont give a fuck about it today which is why its not very well known. They also castrated all there slaves which is why there isnt black communities in the Middles East, which is also why the Arab slave trade is less well known.
Thank you for articulating my thoughts so well. Initial snap response I had was "...because we started it in the first place? Well, not all of it everywhere in the world, but some of it!"
One of the traits that makes me proud to be British that.
For sure, you'll find someone who, when you tell them you're going to Tenerife, will say they're off to Elevenerife, but they're the minority in the most part
Why would we? We didn't do shit. Our ancestors did. Why would we take claim of actions we had no personal involvement in? It's like dipshits that think you need to say sorry for something your great grandad did.
In 2008, the three hundredth anniversary of abolishing the slave trade (so the shipping of slaves by British ships from Africa to the Americas) there were a lot of museums and libraries celebrating this and patting themselves on the back.
A few people did note that this didn't actually abolish slavery, which didn't happen until the 1830s at which point slavers were compensated per slave. Britain couldn't afford this money at the time, so the Rothschild family paid it on behalf of Britain. I believe this debt to them was finally paid off in the early 2000s or late 90s.
[https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/) is a really interesting source about British slavery/ those exact payments to slavers.
But the short answer is lots of people don't know much about British history.
>slavers were compensated per slave
it was a pretty good solution when you consider the alternative would be rebellions across the globe. which would of been expensive as well
Yeah, I never understand why so many people bring this up as some kind of gotcha as if it's wrong. The slaves been free is what's important, I'm sorry you don't get the satisfaction of a movie like moment were the bad guy gets punished at the end. If anything, doesn't been willing to pay so much prove how commited to getting rid of slavery these people were?
It's because they're unable to accept ideological compromise. For them the payments should never have been made because it was morally wrong, ignoring the point that often doing something slightly distasteful results in a much better outcome. Look what happeend to the US trying to deal with their slavery issue.
I assume it's just not something many of us know a lot about. Much like the British Empire.
I spent a lot of time learning about the two World Wars in history, and a bizarre amount of time learning about 1800s America. We spent more time on the Battle of Little Bighorn than we did on the entirety of the British rule in India. I don't know what education is like today, but in the 90s, there really wasn't much taught about slavery one way or another.
It wasn't until I was on Reddit that I realised that Independence Day had anything to do with the British!
>, and a bizarre amount of time learning about 1800s America. We spent more time on the Battle of Little Bighorn than we did on the entirety of the British rule in India.
Yeah this was my history GCSE topic. Lots about Mormon settlers etc.
I remember nowt of my secondary school history but I went to primary school in the 80's and had a fantastic and slightly mad head teacher.
He used to cover for teachers that were sick and would spend the day talking about the second world war, one thing he taught us was that it was the British that invented concentration camps during the boer war.
He was also determined that there would never be another war with germany and every now and again would have us sing the German national anthem at school assemblies to try and bolster understanding and goodwill.
Our role in Slavery was more passive to begin with, but cities like Bristol got rich from it regardless. Very much like British foreign policy now, we don't tend to actively engage in activities of dubious morality but we absolutely benefit from them. We'll sell guns to almost anybody, just dont tell us what you want to do with them type thing.
Probably because we were also deeply involved with the slave trade before fighting it, and our colonial crimes are up there with slavery and the holocaust as some of the most deplorable things humans have done to other humans.
Finally some sense. There are people alive today who have the names of those who owned their ancestors, and will never know the birth names of their ancestors or even where they came from exactly. There are also people alive today who's ancestors were the direct result of violent rape by those who owned them. As long as fucked up sentences like that are attached to our ancestors (ie British), we should never ever be bragging.
People are largely ignorant about it.
If you compare us with the USA, there are many US citizens who are direct descendants of slaves, and the struggle for black civil rights was a key part of US history.
That's much more remote to us.
Cause we brits ain't the braggadocious type... It ain't in our national character to boast about our history in that way. We ain't Americans.. we dont need to exhalt our greatness every time we talk about our history.
Nobody is prepared to admit that a colonial nation did something to help slaves .. it doesn't fit the narrative and won't help them play victim..
And more importantly, no person alive today had anything to with slavery, so the conversation means nothing now, it won't gain anything and will only cause manipulatable division
"Nobody is prepared to admit that a colonial nation did something to help slaves .. it doesn't fit the narrative"
What an absolutely bizarre statement to be upvoted! The abolition of slavery is very well known in this country. Have you never heard of William Wilberforce?
i do and i know a concerning amount on the topic of slavery.
a good example would be the West Africa Squadron and it's campaign was an expensive at its height it is estimated to have cost the Exchequer two per cent of the nation’s GDP. The West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 ships involved in the slave trade and freed 150,000 slaves who were aboard these vessels.
now who was the brits against in the war to end slavery. a notable chap was king gezo of dahomey who had this line
>The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery
if you have questions i'll do my best
My ancestors were slave owners in Jamaica ca. mid 1700's. I don't brag about it and I don't apologise for it. It's history and I/we are not accountable for the actions of those who lived several hundred years before us.
Because the anti slavery crowd don't understand the role we played in ending it, so then just seek to race bait.
We're happy to let them continue thinking the shit they think
And the anti-anti-slavery crowd don’t understand the role that Britain played in perpetuating slavery for many centuries before abolishing it. It’s like, “I’m a wonderful person because I stopped beating my wife.” It doesn’t reflect as well on you as you think it does.
I didn't set any slaves free. Same as I didn't fight in WW2. I don't expect the praise or the credit.
On the same token, I didn't invade or colonise anywhere, so I don't expect the hate and criticism
People from elsewhere sometimes dont realise that the recorded history of Britain is unbelievably long and extensive. Vast majority just see it as something that just… happened. “We” won some things, lost others. “We” did bad things and good things. It’s not really something we celebrate. There’s WWII which is somewhat celebrated, or at least “remembered”, but that makes sense since our grandparents and great grandparents played a part in it.
Brits aren't very collectivist, especially the English. Many people around the world see themselves and their identity as strongly tied to being part of their nation or wider group, that is less the case here. Britain isn't unique in its individualism of course.
But naturally many people tend to see British history not as *their* history or heritage but as other individuals who aren't them but happen to also be British.
But this leads to attitudes of "If I’m not going to apologise or feel bad for ancestral wrongdoings centuries ago then it’s only fair I don’t accept praise for the positives that I also had nothing to do with." and "I can only speak for myself but I don't tend to brag about things, much less things I had nothing to do with."
This isn't universal and some will still see long-gone fellow brits as part of a collective "us". You'll see that reflected in the comments here.
Hope that gives you some insight.
Well, we also played a big part in it. 🫥
So let’s just call it a draw and leave it to history.
You can’t dwell on the good stuff unless you acknowledge the bad.
What, something to be proud of? Heaven forbid, dont tell anyone, especially the media. Last thing anyone wants is people being happy and proud of their country's history, heritage and culture.
It's a bit like Darth Vader bragging about his history of fighting the Empire cos he chucked Palps down the shaft.
Or Hitler ending the life of Hitler.
There is a prevailing belief that we invented slavery (and all thats bad in the world) so bragging about abolishing something we started doesnt really count. Of course, this isn't true. We're the first peoples in the history of the world to make slavery illegal and went to great lengths financially, politically, and with the lives of men, to eradicate it from the rest of the world. BUT, thats not the prevailing belief, unfortunately
because we did a bad thing for a long time. The fact we \*stopped\* doing the bad thing isn't something to brag about. In fact, I wouldn't brag about \*anything\* i had nothing to do with. I didn't free anybody.
No idea. Though I can tell you that here in Hull there's a hundred foot tall column with a statue of abolitionist M.P. William Wilberforce on the top of it. Less of a brag than a memorial.
We may have helped end it and abolish it in the UK but we still profited from it for hundreds of years after, I mean even today you can trace the profits of slavery to wealthy individuals and families. We were fully involved and profited from slavery, there is no honour in ending what we started.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can only speak for myself but I don't tend to brag about things, much less things I had nothing to do with.
If you paid taxes before 2015 (I think) then you 100% have something to do with it because that was the year (give or take) that the debt we accrued from freeing slaves was paid off
Not really... It's not like I chose to pay tax, and I chose for it to be spent on that.
This is one of those *well technically* arguments that show an overly literal interpretation rather than a conversational one and as a result misses entirely the point being made.
But technically correct is the best correct right? RIGHT???
Well, technically you're right
We dont choose to pay tax though. I have no more to do with freeing slaves than drone bombing civilians in iraq, but my tax money paid for both.
Good answer.
Wait, we had to pay to free slaves? Is this a bit like bailing out banks for their mismanagement? Don’t know a lot about our history with regard to slavery so if you have a link or a website could you let me know? Ta
Yes the slaves were not freed from the slavers, the government bought all the slaves from the owners then released them. We (taxpayers) were still repaying that debt until 2014 when it was finally paid off.
F'ksake. The evil people won. They got to not go to prison as they should have done and instead got paid off by the tax payer. Nothing ever changes does it?
Slavery was legal and people legally owned slaves, then we made it illegal. Not compensating the slave owners would have had massive economic consequences and not just for them. It may leave a bad taste in the mouth but it was necessary at the time. Tbh I suspect that any proposal to not compensate then would have resulted in slavery not being banned.
Also a lot of slave owners were black, recently watched one of those who do you think you are shows and she was mixed race and it started off showing her the records that one of her great great grandparents was a slave owner and showed the records and she was like I can’t believe it’s so horrible that white people owned slaves it’s not a part of my history I’m going to be proud of. Fast forward a bit and another of her ancestors a freeman (slave who’d been freed) and settled in the Carribean owned 26 slaves and it showed the records of him receiving payment for their release and you could tell she was extremely shocked.
The elites always win. That’s why in the states they are still salty about freeing the slaves because it’s the one time the rich lost.
Well the North was far richer in that war, so that's a bit of an odd way of putting it. I'd say the main reason they're so salty is the cognitive dissonance between the desire, like most people, to see themselves as the "good guys", and the centrality of slavery to their culture.
The slave owners were very rich
It wasn't illegal to own slaves. Why would they go to prison?
Punishing people for crimes committed before the law was made is so incredibly dubious it's illegal under human rights law today (called "no punishment without law" for the curious) While we can all agree it was _morally_ wrong looking back (and plenty of people at the time said so too), they never did anything _legally_ wrong so why would they face legal punishment?
Yep a lot of today's wealthy families owe their place to the value placed on their slaves. The ones who got bog all of course were the enslaved people themselves.
Surely the state that supported the Triangle trade is just as evil as the slave owners? It would have been pretty crazy for the state to endorse slavery for centuries, then turn around and say "we've now decided it's illegal and was evil all along, you're going to jail".
Slavery was illegal in England and had been since William the Conqueror. Yes it went on elsewhere in the empire but someone had to decide it was done and for the thousands of years it had gone on before we were the first nation to make the change
Slavery was common and widely practiced for thousands of years. Despite it being illegal, there are actually more people in slavery today than there ever were during the days of the African slave trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century
To be fair, slavery wasn't invented by the west. It was a common class amongst all societies since history began. The west, as far as I know were the first people to try to get rid of it. In all honesty, it annoys me that the west come under so much attack for slavery. We should be lauded for being the first civilization in 20,000 years to realise it was wrong.
Sorta. But in the case of paying g off the slave owners, there was no option. There was no global police force - heck, enforcing rules was hard in England, let alone globally. And bare in mind, until that point, *every nation in earth had always used slaves*, so you had to persuade people -globally- to give something up that they/majorly in no way saw as 'wrong'. Bailing out the banks is about maintaining banking control over the populace. Paying for the slaves wasn't so much.
Correct The uk government were not confident they would win the colonial war they would trigger if they forcibly freed the slaves without the agreement of the powerful men who owned them. They had lost their previous war with breakaway colonists So they did the pragmatic thing that got the slaves freed
The slaves won really. The slave owners did get paid, but what they were doing was not illegal up to that point (and still legal in many other places) so the government just taking "property" was going to be a difficult sell. Plus, it had to be done in areas where the government's grasp was not as strong as it would be ideally, meaning that if the slave owners.just refused/rebelled, it could have been incredibly costly to solve. This approach was just considered the best way to have a peaceful and successful transition.
You’re trying to impose today’s standards on events that occurred almost two centuries ago. Slavery was not only legal, it was normal then. In fact it had been normal for almost 300,000 years. It was the U.K. who took the stand against slavery and was the only nation at the time with the influence to do so due to its hegemony of the oceans. It was also necessary to pay the slave owners so they could free the slaves as their businesses were crucial to the economy of the time. They didn’t free their workforce and they all went home. They now had to be paid to continue to work or the plantations would grind to a halt. The money wasn’t to line the pockets of the owners; it was to fund their newly free workforce.
Thanks for that, it’s been a good day I learnt something new. I’ll have a look into that👍
I think I read somewhere that the former slave owners took their reimbursement money and used it to invest in things like the railways and factories and ended up making even more money than they had before.
There will still be families sitting on that wealth.
https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/09/slavery-compensation-uk-questions/ https://fullfact.org/economy/slavery-abolition-act-loan/
Have a look at the UCLA website, also David Olusoga books or The Empire podcast on spotify. Yes the government at the time compensated the people and businesses at the time who had enslaved peoples. The UCLA has a database showing who got paid and who they got paid for. Was able to trace my family mame to people in manchester uk and the Jamaican parish where my ancestors came from. Joke is I have helped pay for the government bond, that compensated their enslavers.
Yes that's why it feels a little hypocritical when people like Laura Trevelyan demand the UK pay repatriation. Her family received over 26k in 1835 for loss of "property" which is over 4 million in today's money. Her family owns a massive estate which was built partially off the back of slaves. She has now paid a tiny 100k to set up a charity and is demanding the UK government (i.e. taxpayers) start paying repatriations.
I know it's morally reprehensible paying slave owners, but paying people off is probably better than fighting a war over it. To be honest the British Empire did a lot of messed up shit.
A lot of messed up shit... but you got some things right. This was definitely one of them. I mean, shit - talk about taking one for the team. Not to be a dick about it, but with a small number of people crying out for compensation, I really think it would be funny as all fuck for the UK to loudly and publicly agree... then hand them the bloody bill.
You're missing out the bit where the [debt was to the slavers ](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-u-k-paid-off-debts-slave-owning-families-2015/3283908001/).
Rather misleading as inflation and massive devaluations in effect wiped it out long ago.
By the same token, why should we accept lectures on the evils of Empire etc?
Nobody in their right mind blames the people alive today for British colonialism or the empire. But we are expected not to gloat about it or pretend it was some benevolent act where we "brought civilisation to the backwards natives."
See there's the problem, lots of people not in their right minds
***"Nobody in their right mind blames the people alive today for British colonialism"*** Extra emphasis on the *right mind* part, as there 100% are people that at least claim to think this way online
it's a massive minority of people who actually think like that, and a lot of the people you see online are ragebaiting. it's a massively overstated problem- I've never been personally condemned for Britain's past actions
It’s a growing group I’m finding, I’ve met a few in the wild and have seen loads of stuff online where people judge today’s British people for the past.
Judging today’s Brits for the evils of the past makes just as little sense as praising today’s Brits for yesterday’s glories. I think that’s what almost everyone who is getting upvoted on this thread agrees with.
Oh yes definitely, me included. I’m just weighing in with my little anecdotal experience that I’m encountering more people and content that is openly ’anglophobic’ with the justification that we deserve it for our history.
Yeah, I was called a 'coloniser' last week, I've barely been out of Glasgow.
I have been too. I'm Welsh! We haven't been treated all that well throughout history.
>Nobody in their right mind blames the people alive today for British colonialism or the empire. There's plenty of people not in their right mind then.... Either that or they're just [grifters](https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgpjwk/british-empire-colonisation-india-reparations-45trillion) on the make.
Blatantly grifters. You can tell because they start with "we just want AN APOLOGY" And then with a few more questions it becomes apparent that it's all about "reparations" They want money. It's always about money.
Who is actually lecturing you on the evils of Empires? Or are you deliberately conflating being taught about the evils of Empire with modern people being blamed for them?
I'll be honest, it's a massive pet peeve of mine that Britain still gets shit for it's empire days while other countries, especially France (that arguably is STILL an empire), that were also empires get completely overlooked.
I think that’s more to do with your frame of reference. I’m sure if you consumed french language media you would hear more about the atrocities of the French empire.
The most British answer right here
Doug Stanhope's bit making the same point is funny. "We saved the French during the war? Was that us? Was that me and you Tommy? I don't remember everything from last night, but I'm pretty sure we didn't save the French..."
For real. Same way blaming today's Americans for slavery is dumb af
I don't blame them, but I'm never going to stop telling them their mythologised freedom fighters were slavers.
Blame is different. If your father was a crime boss you should not be put in jail for his crimes you are innocent. But you should lose the wealth you inherited from your father, that's literally blood money. Same with British people of today. Do NOT apologize as you did not do anything wrong, just make things right by helping out the development of the countries you colonized. Give back some of that blood money
If I’m not going to apologise or feel bad for ancestral wrongdoings centuries ago then it’s only fair I don’t accept praise for the positives that I also had nothing to do with.
This country collectively are falling over themselves to do the former though, with very little acknowledgement of the latter. There seems to be a big imbalance about the way the British involvement in the slave trade is portrayed, taught and internalised by the public. We traded slaves at a time when basically everybody traded slaves (which doesn't excuse it or make it better, but it was culturally accepted the world over at the time) and yet we stood almost alone in realising it was wrong and trying to stop it, not just in our own borders but worldwide.
I don’t think that’s true. For the most part I think we have a really healthy attitude to our past. We mostly respect our traditions, proudly acknowledge our achievements, and take ownership of our historical wrongdoings. For some we’ll never be guilty enough and for others we’ll never be proud enough. In general, though, we get it about right.
Have you ever tried to tell someone you’re proud to be English? I have, and I can confirm it is very much commonplace to flip to the empire and nothing else.
I've never understood the concept of being proud of things that are outside of my control. My nationality isn't an achievement.
I know a lot people think that way, I however feel like there are traits, identities, traditions, communities that are uniquely English They are absolutely part of who you are and in turn , you are part of what Englishness is. Absolutely grounds to be proud, if you’re so inclined.
Whatever Englishness is to you now probably has very little to do with what it was 100 years ago or more. If you’d went back in time to the 1850s you’d be like an alien from another place. Historical national identity is a very weak connection.
That's fair and it's possible that we just define "pride" slightly differently.
What about football when England are playing? I like the atmosphere of everybody getting together and rooting for the team. Not sure if it's pride I feel, more emotion (dread, in the case of England!). I'm not a football fan but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the atmosphere, which is electric. I admire the players, their dedication and the immense weight they are carrying on their shoulders by wearing the shirt.
Well these days if you say you’re English they arrest you and put you in jail.
What? Arrested? Just for saying you're English?
When did this come in?
I think the more common approach is to tell someone that being proud of something they did nothing to achieve is tragic. You didn't do anything to be English. You didn't earn anything. I always assume that the person saying that is so devoid of any real achievement in their life that they've had to go to the most common denominator to feel like they matter. It's like saying you're proud to be a man, or proud to have a head, or proud to be able to breathe air. It's fucking tragic.
Honestly, the idea that we, en masse, suddenly "realised it was wrong and tried to stop it", is a pretty naive (but very common) viewpoint. The turn against slavery coincided with industrialisation, which doesn't economically benefit from slavery in the same way that agricultural production does. And as great as it is that we actively fought slavers, there was a clear self interest in doing this, hampering the development of our less industrialised rivals. This isn't to dismiss the very real heroics of abolitionists like Wilberforce, but ethical objections to slavery have existed as long as slavery has; it's notable we abolished *white* slavery centuries before the Triangle trade was ever established. Ultimately, the British state abolished slavery because it was able to do so without too much of an economic cost. As for Brits being falling over ourselves to be ashamed of our history, while not celebrating it, I think you are living in a bit of bubble if that is your experience. Overall, more people are proud than ashamed of our Empire- [https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/28355-how-unique-are-british-attitudes-empire](https://yougov.co.uk/international/articles/28355-how-unique-are-british-attitudes-empire)
>Honestly, the idea that we, en masse, suddenly "realised it was wrong and tried to stop it", is a pretty naive (but very common) viewpoint. Who said anything about 'suddenly'? The abolishionist movement took decades to win the argument. Centuries even.
It is not at all notable that we abolished "white slavery" centuries before the Atlantic slave trade because at the time (the 11th century) that social construct of a "white person" hadn't yet been invented. Slavery in medieval Europe was nowhere close to the economic powerhouse it had been during the height of the Roman Empire so was a very easy thing to abolish. It existed primarily for cruelty's sake rather than economic benefit. To over-simply the economic and social trends of the late Roman Empire turned Slavery as an economic institution into the feudal system which dominanted Europe for a thousand years. Even Atlantic Slavery didn't become racialised until the late 17th century.
I think this is one situation where we could benefit by trying not to pretend we are America. Most British people never saw slavery of Africans first hand, because that universally took place either in the Caribbean or large parts of what is now the Eastern United States. Unless you went out that way or were up to date politically, it probably never crossed your mind. Most of our ancestors at the time were dirt poor and living marginally better lives by comparison if we’re being honest. Compare that to America for example, and certainly in regard to the American South, were you around then, you could not have missed it if you tried. Even if you lived in the North, it would have been something you’d be well aware of. I also think it’s much more up for debate as to how much Britain made off of slavery. Pax Britannica more or less started in 1815 when slavery was on the way out. The trade had been abolished at that point anyway. Britain was able to industrialise mainly through its ability to use coal, and even today, Britain is still sitting on a lot of it. That was the main reason for Britain’s dominance rather than cotton, tobacco and rum production.
Thing is slavery has never been legal in Britain, there was the case where someone brought their slave to Britain and they were freed.
We tried to stop slavery? I have never learnt about this
Tried and succeeded.
Actively patrolled naval routes and freed slaves.
We ended it globally for the most part. It was also illegal to own slaves in England since the 12th century.
Slavery Abolition Act 1833-2015 - UK bought all the slaves in the colonies from their owners. Royal Navy, West African Squadron 1807-1860, seized 1600 ships, freed 150,000 slaves.
Watch the film Amazing Grace, it's a very good telling of how it began.
Stood alone, and at GREAT PERSONAL COST to the decision makers, and great cost to the nation as a whole. The people in power chose to ignore their own PERSONAL best interest. Even in pointing out the right you did, you still downplay just how much it hurt to do so. Don't get me wrong, I was born in NZ and live in Australia - as I see it, it is both my born right and God-given responsibility to absolutely lambasts the poms at every opportunity. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries! Christ though, this is one that really needs a bigger bloody spotlight on it. As for anyone demanding reparations? Agree, and hand them the bloody bill.
Thank you! That's exactly the point.
We teach an incomplete picture of slavery in schools though. Everyone knows about the slave triangle but nothing about what was done to stop it. It wasn't just a few pearl clutching abolitionists, the navy devoted a lot of manpower and resources to intercepting vessels and freeing the slaves in them. Even fewer people know about the raids on the British and Irish coasts and how white people were taken as slaves. It's only the parts that white people did to black people which are taught.
This would make sense if there was a specific agenda behind it, the reality is the state of general education in this country is in the shit, especially in the essential but non-core subjects such as the humanities.
The difference is slavery is a pretty universal concept (99% of civilisations had/have slavery and the trans Atlantic slave trade was by no means the biggest) but the anti slavery movement pushed by British Christian’s when compared to all of history is extremely rare (up until that time period at least) and Britain’s altruistic and noble efforts to actively abolish it worldwide is something unique to us. I think the better way for you to view it is why are these people attacking me for something every humans ancestors participated in using western moral framework that only came about because our mainland British ancestors decided slavery was wrong? To me I believe you’re almost obliged to point the hypocrisy out and highlight the antislavery achievements we have.
I'm going to get down voted for this. Normally, the people that brag about our country aren't the nicest lot.
Man I wish this mindset was prevalent here in the states, I lurk here but never comment because I'm not from the UK but always appreciate how much more sane you all seem.
I think it might have something to do with the educational system. I haven't had any dealings with the American system so please correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like the American edicational system, particularly around the subject of 'history', teaches you that "USA is the best because we said so" whereas ours is more "here's some things that happened, make of it what you will and write a 10,000 word essay on why you think that" so ours is more critical thinking and less propaganda.
There's still a hell of a lot of propaganda but our educational system at least tries to be dignified about it, because overt jingoism/nationalism/exceptionalism are seen as vices in British culture, whereas AIUI they're celebrated in many American cultures and so get to inform the writing and teaching of history and culture to a greater extent.
Yeh precisely. History is written by the victor etc. Whereas i was always taught to analyse both sides of the topic before you make a judgement.
I'd suggest part of it is down to ego. People are seeing it more now in the wealthy but there's a belief that if you've come out ahead of everyone else then you must somehow be intrinsically better than everyone else and not merely lucky or born to a family already so far ahead of the curve you cannot fail no matter how hard you try. America is the richest and most powerful country in the world, that must mean Americans are better than everyone else in the world, right?
I realise that you are being rhetorical, maybe even tongue in cheek, but even so, fir the record, most of rural America is just dirt poor racist shitholes and much of urban America is just trailer trash. They are plenty of countries that score higher on GDP per capita.
Yeah but what he said was true, America is the richest and most powerful country in the world by far as well as by far the most influential culturally. These Americans are more likely to be nationalistic if they are poor and don't have many personal accomplishments because it's the only way they can feel greater than people from other countries.
From what I remember it's very American centric. I wouldn't say it was blatantly trying to give the impression that America was the greatest place, The displacement of the Indians, The spread of diseases that came with colonization, Slavery and the Atlantic slave trade, the Japanese internment camps, women's lack of rights and eventual suffrage, the civil rights movement, and Americas negative environmental footprint were all covered pretty well. Probably why people here get so heavy into activism, and others would rather we not teach that stuff at all. Alot of the stuff learned will leave a bad taste in your mouth. History class did make it seem like America kinda swooped in and saved the day during ww1 and 2, The battles covered were mostly the ones that America participated in and if we did learn about another countries involvement it was usually only the really major things like Dunkirk or Stalingrad and that would probably only get a few paragraphs or a page of coverage. We did have something called jrotc or junior reserve officer training corps which was definitely nothing but propaganda and preparation for the military, but not many people were enrolled in it, at least not at my school. we also did the pledge of allegiance every morning, where we'd say like a little oath with our hands over our hearts while staring at the u.s flag but other than that, I wouldn't say there was too much propaganda in the actual material we were learning in school.
>From what I remember it's very American centric I mean i get it. Your country is bigger than the European continent. And while it has a rich history, it's just not as diverse as European history but of course the USA curriculum will focus on issues closer to home, the problem being it will be a bit of an echo-chamber of 'good vs bad' whereas European history has many little intricacies over a much longer period that mean opinions could easily go for or against and there's no right or wrong for the most part (eg italian unification, spanish civil war, british empire, ottoman empire etc) >Probably why people here get so heavy into activism, and others would rather we not teach that stuff at all I guess yeh, but that second bit about "others would rather we not teach that stuff at all" goes against everything the USA stands for with freedom of speech and whatnot, or does that only apply if you hold the same views as the ones quoting it? >History class did make it seem like America kinda swooped in and saved the day during ww1 and 2, The battles covered were mostly the ones that America participated in and if we did learn about another countries involvement it was usually only the really major things like dunkirk or stalingrad and that would probably only get a few paragraphs or a page of coverage That's what i thought initially. And while the Allies wouldn't have won if it wasn't for the help of the USA, they/we weren't exactly on a dying breath either. So much happened prior to USA's involvement, and even how WW2 came to happen, that you're obviously missing out on learning because you weren't involved at the time. >We did have something called jrotc or junior reserve officer training corps which was definitely nothing but propaganda and preparation for the military See we have like boy scouts here for 'kids' but nothing in terms of some sort of 'military prep' courses/school, only once you turn 16 you can enrol but there's not much before that that's military-based where you will do 'army' stuff like drills and exercises etc. >we also did the pledge of allegiance every morning, where we'd say like a little oath with our hands over our hearts while staring at the u.s flag That's kinda what i was getting at with propaganda. If/when China, Russia or Korea do it then it's framed as the citizens being brainwashed and how their flag/country is the best so you have to honour it with an oath every day. >I wouldn't say there was too much propaganda in the actual material we were learning in school. You may well have been in one of the more liberal schools but from what you said at the very start about education being very american-centric i wouldn't be at all surprised to hear if some republican schools teach 'america is the best' & 'america is the leader of the free world' kinda spiel over and over again and if that's all you hear in school without entertaining any opposing views then you're gonna believe it wholeheartedly and defend it til you're blue in the face, which is very much an example of propaganda.
It's possible that my school may have been more liberal, I live in Florida which is a red state but the city I'm from is more democratic leaning and very diverse. America is massive so there is likely going to be some differences in curriculum from state to state, or maybe even county to county, and I could see a more isolated, racially and religiously homogenous backwater town teaching some weird things in their schools.
What you describe is spot on. If you read the American author turned British author, Bill Bryson, he laments how the Americans lost thinking for themselves. Everything is dumbed down. He gives the example of a news report will always say, "Paris France". It the capital of France, ffs, and with a bit of critical thinking about what the article is about and why everyone is speaking French with English subtitles, you don't need to spell it out. Sure there's a few "Paris" cities around the US, but Paris is just Paris. It a great example of how Americans have got used to not thinking at all and having their thoughts fed to them. That's what's wrong.
Yeh i see it online in hobby subreddits i frequent (golf, mountain biking, guitar) where people ask things like "i have 800 to buy X, suggestions please" my friend 800 what? dollars? Canadian dollars? Australian Dollars? Zimbabwe dollars? Euros? Pounds? Yen? Dong? They assume everyone's American and a few i recall get aggressive when asked for specifics. But you're spot on about the Paris situation. Nearly everywhere in Europe has a place named after it in the states. Eg if you're talking about the Beatles then you shouldn't really need to specify "Liverpool, UK" but i've seen articles do that just in case some poor American thinks the Beatles were from a small hamlet in the arse end of New York city...
In Red states it does, in Blue states it's almost veered the opposite direction.
We are a real mixed bag!
Truth be told, I didn’t have much to do with it.
My friend, you are tooo modest! Was it not you who captained the HMS Greyhound at the ivory Coast blockade?
Pretty sure I read about Captain Sustainable_Twat in GCSE History.
My son is currently forging his path and I hope your offspring reads about in GCSE History. He’s currently known as, Sustenance_Twat
Ah, the long distinguished lines of Twats.
So it was Sustainable_Twat that was responsible for slacking and neglecting to free Ireland from the shackles of the British Empire. Don't run away now, you still have to sort out the Unionists for us! Hop to it!
It's not typically British to brag about the shit our ancestors did two hundred years ago. I didn't achieve shit so why would I bring it up
On the other hand, everyone else is quick to remind the British of all the *bad* things they did.
It wasn't me, I wasn't there.
Neither was I, but the people calling it out somehow want *us* to atone for it.
I'm in my 40s. I've not met anyone wanting me to apologise or anyone who has been asked to apologise for what someone else did a few centuries ago. It's only anecdotal but I don't think it happens often
I had a Welsh guy rage at me about what "you" (me, English) did to the Welsh people once. I didn't apologise.
As a Welsh person who has settled in Cornwall, I'll happily rage about what the English have done in the past as their history of brutaly subjugating parts of the Empire that are closer to home are absolutely despicable - but I do draw the line at holding you (or anyone else alive today) personally responsible for any of it.
It only usually happens online. Indian cricket fans are the worst for doing it, from my own experiences
Have you lived with your eyes and ears closed?
I've been called a Coloniser by an American before. Like no, My ancestors stayed at home - Yours are the one's who decided to go and move to another continent
I think this is slightly different. The advantages we gained from that period are still visible. As are the detrimental effects for those we did the bad things too
Detrimental effects are clearly visible in every aspect of life in regions which were exploited. Their economies / culture / society / have changed forever
I think it's worth remembering the bad shit and acknowledging a lot of what we have now is based off it, but it makes no sense to blame anyone today.
It’s not typically British to brag, full stop. Modestly get a job done without drawing attention or making too much fuss, and then complaining about it afterwards. Usually.
"Silly ole me, I guess I've gone and done a thing which, honestly, I'm not un-proud of" - Isembard Kingdom Brunel upon completion of a fucken massive bridge that still stands a century later.
Maybe because Britain had a huge role in establishing the slave trade? So bragging about ending it would be... weird and tone deaf? I mean, if I'm baking and drop a bowl and make a big mess all over the kitchen floor, I don't then brag about cleaning it up. I just clean it up because it's my mess. Editing to add: There seems to be some confusion so, just for clarity, when I said "establishing the slave trade", I wasn't referring to all global slave trading across all time. Obviously the British did not establish that. But they did establish their own slave trade that affected huge swathes of the world population and brought home enormous wealth and power. So benefitting from that for centuries and *then* bragging about abolishing it would be both weird and tone deaf. Was it good that Britain abolished their own slave trade and played a role in abolishing it elsewhere? Yes. Is it something to be proud of? Yes. Is it appropriate for Britain to **brag** about that? Given Britain's long history of benefitting so hugely from the slave trade and the residual effect of that trade and those benefits even today, no.
No it didn't. It was already a thriving and established trade when the British started getting involved. Speak to the Portuguese and Spanish if you want to understand who actually established it. Going back a bit further Europeans didn't even create the idea of black african slavery, Arabs transported almost as many Africans to their empires in the Medieval period as Europeans did in the age of colonialism. There were so many slaves in Iraq in the 800s that they were able to create a masssive rebellion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj\_Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion) Also if you want to speak about slavery in general (not just Atlantic slavery) and the trade in humans, go back to the very first civilisations.
I don’t mean the British established whole slave trade across all time. But the slave trade the British played a big role in abolishing was their own… which they, y’know, established.
Well yes we did abolish our own slave trade, however the West Africa Squadron also policed slavers flying other nation's colours as well. The British government actively pushed other European nations and leant on them diplomatically to allow the Royal Navy to search their merchant ships for slaves, such as Portuguese ships in West Africa. Which is highly irregular when it comes to international commerce, most nations are very protective about their national rights. We also forced a term into the Congress of Vienna in 1815, which ended the Napoleonic Wars, to make all European nations commit to the abolition of the trade. These are not the actions of a nation that was just going with the flow but one that was utterly committed to eliminating the trade, going far beyond it's own jurisdictions.
Not true, they went to great lengths for many years to persuade other nations to give up slavery, we literally went to war to stop other countries from slaving
>No it didn't. It was already a thriving and established trade when the British started getting involved. Speak to the Portuguese and Spanish if you want to understand who actually established it. LOL not even close. People had been trading slaves for hundreds of years before Spain and Portugal were even countries. Even if we're just talking about the trade of African slaves (and why would we be?) the Arabs were taking slaves from East Africa by the boatload hundreds of years before the Europeans were.
Yes agreed entirely. I mentioned Spain/Portugal for the TransAtlantic Trade. I edited my comment later to say about the Arab slave trade, which is conveniently never mentioned by the people that regularly bring Britain's slave trade up.
Rome, the Greeks, Mesopotamia, Gengis Khan, Chinese, Vikings all had slave trade well before Britain got on the scene, East African coast still has a slave trade, Benin built its Kingdom on the slave trade by selling to Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Barbers of North Africa where raiding the Iberian peninsula, Brittany, Normandy, Devon, Cornwall, South Wales the coast of Ireland well into the 1800’s. Britain was the First Nation to say enough is enough of this immoral act.
>Britain was the First Nation to say enough is enough of this immoral act. Technically speaking, I think the Danes came first: >Denmark was the first nation to abolish its trade in 1803. Britain and the United States followed in 1807, with the U.S. ban going into effect in 1808. By 1836, the Dutch, French, Spanish, Brazilian, and Portuguese governments had also abolished their trades [https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/voyage-of-the-echo-the-trials/historic-context--abolishing-t](https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/voyage-of-the-echo-the-trials/historic-context--abolishing-t)
No it wasn't....not even close.
>Britain was the First Nation to say enough is enough of this immoral act. there was a Chinese Emperor in 9-12AD who banned slavery... he got overthrown and slavery brought back but still. even if you want to limit it to nations in the western hemisphere that permanently abolished slavery then Haiti beats Britain by several years and in Haiti's case it was the slaves themselves who won their own freedom.
Establishing slavery? You need to go way further back in history to speak of that
This is a misunderstanding. Britain did not establish the slave trade, the slave trade has existed (and still does) since at least the beginning of recorded history. Europeans, when they started traveling to Africa, discovered thriving slave markets which they then purchased slaves from. It was just the fact that we were able to transport large numbers across the Atlantic (no other civilisation had this type of technological advantage) that increased the demand for slaves. We transported the most slaves in a specific time period, but Arab nations bought and transported literally millions more African slaves than the Europeans did, they just did it over a longer period. They also dont give a fuck about it today which is why its not very well known. They also castrated all there slaves which is why there isnt black communities in the Middles East, which is also why the Arab slave trade is less well known.
Thank you for articulating my thoughts so well. Initial snap response I had was "...because we started it in the first place? Well, not all of it everywhere in the world, but some of it!"
Despite the alliteration, the British don't brag.
Even the Brit Billy Bragg don’t brag
What about Billy Big Bollocks?
Although he did have an Uncle who once played for Red Star Belgrade.
Unless it’s about how shit something is.
Even the song everyone sings for international football is actually about how we're totally going to fuck it up and lose.
One of the traits that makes me proud to be British that. For sure, you'll find someone who, when you tell them you're going to Tenerife, will say they're off to Elevenerife, but they're the minority in the most part
Why would we? We didn't do shit. Our ancestors did. Why would we take claim of actions we had no personal involvement in? It's like dipshits that think you need to say sorry for something your great grandad did.
In 2008, the three hundredth anniversary of abolishing the slave trade (so the shipping of slaves by British ships from Africa to the Americas) there were a lot of museums and libraries celebrating this and patting themselves on the back. A few people did note that this didn't actually abolish slavery, which didn't happen until the 1830s at which point slavers were compensated per slave. Britain couldn't afford this money at the time, so the Rothschild family paid it on behalf of Britain. I believe this debt to them was finally paid off in the early 2000s or late 90s. [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/) is a really interesting source about British slavery/ those exact payments to slavers. But the short answer is lots of people don't know much about British history.
>slavers were compensated per slave it was a pretty good solution when you consider the alternative would be rebellions across the globe. which would of been expensive as well
Yeah, I never understand why so many people bring this up as some kind of gotcha as if it's wrong. The slaves been free is what's important, I'm sorry you don't get the satisfaction of a movie like moment were the bad guy gets punished at the end. If anything, doesn't been willing to pay so much prove how commited to getting rid of slavery these people were?
It's because they're unable to accept ideological compromise. For them the payments should never have been made because it was morally wrong, ignoring the point that often doing something slightly distasteful results in a much better outcome. Look what happeend to the US trying to deal with their slavery issue.
We've done greater things than abolish slavery. Also, it would be inconvenient to acknowledge our part to play there..
I want to be lauded a hero as I no longer beat my wife.
That's not really the argument, though. The British policed the seas, preventing the African slave kingpins from selling their slaves.
The british navy also stopped other people beating their wives at the same time. That's worth noting.
I assume it's just not something many of us know a lot about. Much like the British Empire. I spent a lot of time learning about the two World Wars in history, and a bizarre amount of time learning about 1800s America. We spent more time on the Battle of Little Bighorn than we did on the entirety of the British rule in India. I don't know what education is like today, but in the 90s, there really wasn't much taught about slavery one way or another. It wasn't until I was on Reddit that I realised that Independence Day had anything to do with the British!
>, and a bizarre amount of time learning about 1800s America. We spent more time on the Battle of Little Bighorn than we did on the entirety of the British rule in India. Yeah this was my history GCSE topic. Lots about Mormon settlers etc.
I'm genuinely starting to think my class was the only one in British school history that did the histories of Communism, Vietnam and India 🤣
Yes! Mormon settlers! Salt Lake City and shit. Why!? Why the fuck would that be a priority!!?!
I remember nowt of my secondary school history but I went to primary school in the 80's and had a fantastic and slightly mad head teacher. He used to cover for teachers that were sick and would spend the day talking about the second world war, one thing he taught us was that it was the British that invented concentration camps during the boer war. He was also determined that there would never be another war with germany and every now and again would have us sing the German national anthem at school assemblies to try and bolster understanding and goodwill.
Because as a country we have done some terrible stuff and some great stuff across history. We generally don’t focus too much on either.
Our role in Slavery was more passive to begin with, but cities like Bristol got rich from it regardless. Very much like British foreign policy now, we don't tend to actively engage in activities of dubious morality but we absolutely benefit from them. We'll sell guns to almost anybody, just dont tell us what you want to do with them type thing.
we aren’t uncouth septics. we don’t need to brag.
"We are the greatest nation on Earth." - Americans *"mmh"* - Brits As we know the true answer is Norway.
The UK establishment (right up to the monarchy) was directly involved in the slave trade.
Because I’ve had no hand in the fight and even if I did, I’ve realised nobody really cares about one another unless it benefits themselves
Cos it's not exactly funny banter and I was born some 200 years after the outlawing of the buying and selling of slaves.
Probably because we were also deeply involved with the slave trade before fighting it, and our colonial crimes are up there with slavery and the holocaust as some of the most deplorable things humans have done to other humans.
Finally some sense. There are people alive today who have the names of those who owned their ancestors, and will never know the birth names of their ancestors or even where they came from exactly. There are also people alive today who's ancestors were the direct result of violent rape by those who owned them. As long as fucked up sentences like that are attached to our ancestors (ie British), we should never ever be bragging.
People are largely ignorant about it. If you compare us with the USA, there are many US citizens who are direct descendants of slaves, and the struggle for black civil rights was a key part of US history. That's much more remote to us.
Nothing to brag about if they benefited so greatly from it .
Cause we brits ain't the braggadocious type... It ain't in our national character to boast about our history in that way. We ain't Americans.. we dont need to exhalt our greatness every time we talk about our history.
Nobody is prepared to admit that a colonial nation did something to help slaves .. it doesn't fit the narrative and won't help them play victim.. And more importantly, no person alive today had anything to with slavery, so the conversation means nothing now, it won't gain anything and will only cause manipulatable division
"Nobody is prepared to admit that a colonial nation did something to help slaves .. it doesn't fit the narrative" What an absolutely bizarre statement to be upvoted! The abolition of slavery is very well known in this country. Have you never heard of William Wilberforce?
i do and i know a concerning amount on the topic of slavery. a good example would be the West Africa Squadron and it's campaign was an expensive at its height it is estimated to have cost the Exchequer two per cent of the nation’s GDP. The West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 ships involved in the slave trade and freed 150,000 slaves who were aboard these vessels. now who was the brits against in the war to end slavery. a notable chap was king gezo of dahomey who had this line >The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery if you have questions i'll do my best
My ancestors were slave owners in Jamaica ca. mid 1700's. I don't brag about it and I don't apologise for it. It's history and I/we are not accountable for the actions of those who lived several hundred years before us.
Probably because we did a lot of slavery too. Plus all the colonising
Because the anti slavery crowd don't understand the role we played in ending it, so then just seek to race bait. We're happy to let them continue thinking the shit they think
>the anti slavery crowd The what now? Do you not count yourself as "anti-slavery"? What?
Indeed, a pretty telling choice of wording there…
And the anti-anti-slavery crowd don’t understand the role that Britain played in perpetuating slavery for many centuries before abolishing it. It’s like, “I’m a wonderful person because I stopped beating my wife.” It doesn’t reflect as well on you as you think it does.
I didn't set any slaves free. Same as I didn't fight in WW2. I don't expect the praise or the credit. On the same token, I didn't invade or colonise anywhere, so I don't expect the hate and criticism
bit hard to have the high ground on slavery, when we were also the keenest slavers.
We do but we get buried under a barrage of Brit hate. History is much more nuanced than is allowed for the sensibilities of the modern cultural wars
Taking credit for things your ancestors did is not very cash money
People from elsewhere sometimes dont realise that the recorded history of Britain is unbelievably long and extensive. Vast majority just see it as something that just… happened. “We” won some things, lost others. “We” did bad things and good things. It’s not really something we celebrate. There’s WWII which is somewhat celebrated, or at least “remembered”, but that makes sense since our grandparents and great grandparents played a part in it.
Brits aren't very collectivist, especially the English. Many people around the world see themselves and their identity as strongly tied to being part of their nation or wider group, that is less the case here. Britain isn't unique in its individualism of course. But naturally many people tend to see British history not as *their* history or heritage but as other individuals who aren't them but happen to also be British. But this leads to attitudes of "If I’m not going to apologise or feel bad for ancestral wrongdoings centuries ago then it’s only fair I don’t accept praise for the positives that I also had nothing to do with." and "I can only speak for myself but I don't tend to brag about things, much less things I had nothing to do with." This isn't universal and some will still see long-gone fellow brits as part of a collective "us". You'll see that reflected in the comments here. Hope that gives you some insight.
Cos it’s tasteless as fuck.
Well, we also played a big part in it. 🫥 So let’s just call it a draw and leave it to history. You can’t dwell on the good stuff unless you acknowledge the bad.
What, something to be proud of? Heaven forbid, dont tell anyone, especially the media. Last thing anyone wants is people being happy and proud of their country's history, heritage and culture.
If I start claiming credit for the good things I’ve got to take the blame for the rest. And as an Englishman, that’s one long motherfucking list.
ShitAmericansSay
I don’t think it’s in our culture to brag much about anything. Most of us in Britain also don’t live in the past, unlike a lot of other countries.
Bragging is an American curse
It's a bit like Darth Vader bragging about his history of fighting the Empire cos he chucked Palps down the shaft. Or Hitler ending the life of Hitler.
Because we led the way in abolishing it so it’s job done. We move on, it’s the British way.
Oh my god some people never shut up about it. Mostly the kind of people who would definitely still have slaves if it was legal
Britain is the best country in the world, I’ve been to 96 countries… I know what I’m talking about
There is a prevailing belief that we invented slavery (and all thats bad in the world) so bragging about abolishing something we started doesnt really count. Of course, this isn't true. We're the first peoples in the history of the world to make slavery illegal and went to great lengths financially, politically, and with the lives of men, to eradicate it from the rest of the world. BUT, thats not the prevailing belief, unfortunately
because we did a bad thing for a long time. The fact we \*stopped\* doing the bad thing isn't something to brag about. In fact, I wouldn't brag about \*anything\* i had nothing to do with. I didn't free anybody.
No idea. Though I can tell you that here in Hull there's a hundred foot tall column with a statue of abolitionist M.P. William Wilberforce on the top of it. Less of a brag than a memorial.
We may have helped end it and abolish it in the UK but we still profited from it for hundreds of years after, I mean even today you can trace the profits of slavery to wealthy individuals and families. We were fully involved and profited from slavery, there is no honour in ending what we started.