4 ms·
Once the economic advantages were outweighed by the political disadvantages. "while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with
by pjriot 10y ago
Once the economic advantages were outweighed by the political disadvantages.
"while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it". I guess this depends on how you define "country", but lets take it to mean the majority of a population. I'll give you that countries benefiting from the slave trade were clearly fine with it. I sincerely doubt the populations being enslaved were though. (their opinions count right?)
- JetSetWilly 10y agoThat's the very thing I am talking about. Britain was the first country in which it was a massive political liability to support slavery, and the first country in which the opinions of ordinary people mobilising and campaigning against slavery actually mattered and made a difference. You can cast this in cynical terms as self interest, but you can do that with any action by any state in history - Britain is hardly unique there.
- pjriot 10y agoI don't think its being particularly cynical to say if the industries supported by slavery had not been supplanted somewhat (reducing their political power) then slavery would have continued apace. Politicians have proven adept at taking advantage of popular movements when suitable. Its basic economics. Had the ruling elite deemed it necessary I'm sure Punch could have been commissioned to print all manner of xenophobic cartoons about subhuman slaves and their barbarism in order to justify the practice further. This isn't to diminish the efforts of the anti-slavery movement or the individuals involved. *Edit: Also, yes, this is not unique to any country at all. I'm sure there are a myriad of examples of slavery within any of the countries that Britain colonised throughout history.
- keyboardwarrior 10y agovery dark yet very accurate
- blahi 10y agoNo, they didn't count. That's the whole point.
- gozur88 10y agoI'm not sure you realize just how ubiquitous the institution of slavery was prior to the 19th century. Those "populations being enslaved" themselves had slaves when they were strong enough to take them. Slaves made empires (true empires) possible because captive people are a net positive for the conquerors. You could conquer your neighbors and... sell them to pay for the war, which isn't the case today. Outside Syria, I guess. When the Roman Empire was at its peak citizens could pay their taxes with only two days of work per year.