5 ms·

This is an absurd generalisation. The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA, and even that period is over a hundred and

This is an absurd generalisation. The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA, and even that period is over a hundred and fifty years ago. Furthermore, the civil war that was waged to end slavery ultimately brought economic ruin to the southern States that had relied on slave labour. In the post-WWII era, the countries that have prospered have done so because they have enjoyed stable government and long periods of peaceful relations with their neighbours. This allows for an educated populace, fruitful use of their natural resources and human ingenuity, and remunerative trade with other nations.

JPLeRouzic 9y ago
>> The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA I do not know for other countries but in France what is told in schools and in media is that France had abolished slavery in 1794. However it had slavery inscribed in its legal system for West Africa up until the beginning of the 20th century. Even in metropolitan France, slavery was reinstated by Napoleon in 1802 and was not abolished for good until 1848 (in metropolitan France!). In west Africa it was only in the beginning of the XX century that an end of slavery was declared by the colonial French administration ( 1905 in Mauritania). In African states like Mali that are still controlled by France, at least by its military forces and its financial system (CFA/West African Franc), slavery was only legally forbidden in 2003.
eesmith 9y ago
You write: "The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_... : > By the 18th century, the slave trade became a major economic mainstay for such cities as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, engaged in the so-called "Triangular trade". Further details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade : > Bristol and Liverpool merchants became increasingly involved in the trade.[92] By the late 17th century, one out of every four ships that left Liverpool harbour was a slave trading ship.[93] Much of the wealth on which the city of Manchester, and surrounding towns, was built in the late 18th century, and for much of the 19th century, was based on the processing of slave-picked cotton and manufacture of cloth.[94] Other British cities also profited from the slave trade. Birmingham, the largest gun-producing town in Britain at the time, supplied guns to be traded for slaves.[95] 75% of all sugar produced in the plantations was sent to London, and much of it was consumed in the highly lucrative coffee houses there. ... > By far the most financially profitable West Indian colonies in 1800 belonged to the United Kingdom. ... > It has been estimated that the profits of the slave trade and of West Indian plantations created up to one-in-twenty of every pound circulating in the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 18th century
- Supernaut 9y ago
  Thank you for your excellent reply. I stand corrected that regard. However, the fact that the period to which your refer is some 250 years in the past supports my wider point that it is specious to claim that the the wealth of current-day first world nations derives from the historic use of slave labour.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Do you still consider it an "absurd generalization"? How many years does it take for the benefits of slavery to disappear? I think it's far longer than you do. British slavery meant more income to the government, which lead to a better navy, which lead to the ability to defend the triangle trade. A better navy helped advance British imperialism. How might Trafalgar have turned out with a weaker British navy? British control of sugar production was built on slavery. But even once the slaves were free in a legal sense, the black population of ex-slaves was still at the bottom of the social ladder. The white landowners kept political and economic control for generations, and the profits went to Britain. In the US, institutionalized racism, not just in localized Jim Crow laws and sundown towns, but also in federal policies like redlining, prevented generations of blacks from getting the same economic benefits as whites. (See Richard Rothstein's “The Color of Law”; interview at http://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america http://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-... .) I know less about British history, but I do know how many thought the "Anglo-Saxon race" was above all others. You earlier wrote: "Furthermore, the civil war that was waged to end slavery ultimately brought economic ruin to the southern States that had relied on slave labour." I don't think you appreciate the full impact of slavery on the US or British economies. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Agitation_against_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#A... : > slavery was entwined with the national economy; for instance, the banking, shipping and manufacturing industries of New York City all had strong economic interests in slavery, as did similar industries in other major port cities in the North. The northern textile mills in New York and New England processed Southern cotton and manufactured clothes to outfit slaves. By 1822 half of New York City's exports were related to cotton and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton#History > By 1860, on the eve of the American Civil War, cotton accounted for almost 60% of American exports, representing a total value of nearly $200 million a year. Even though slavery was banned in the British Empire, Britain still profited from slave labor carried out elsewhere. The cotton mills of Lancashire produced a huge fraction of the world's processed cotton. You know where that cotton came from? The forced labor of American slaves. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine : > When the slave-owning Southern States of America demanded secession from the United States of America and declared war in 1861, the cotton supply was interrupted at first by a Southern imposed boycott and then a Union blockade. The South's thinking was that it could force British support through an economic boycott. ... Of the 1,390,938,752 lb of raw cotton 1,115,890,608 lb came from America.(80 %) ... Confederate flags were flown in many cotton towns. Britain's economy profited from American slavery even until the 1860s, and they knew it.

JPLeRouzic 9y ago

>> The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA I do not know for other countries but in France what is told in schools and in media is that France had abolished slavery in 1794. However it had slavery inscribed in its legal system for West Africa up until the beginning of the 20th century. Even in metropolitan France, slavery was reinstated by Napoleon in 1802 and was not abolished for good until 1848 (in metropolitan France!). In west Africa it was only in the beginning of the XX century that an end of slavery was declared by the colonial French administration ( 1905 in Mauritania). In African states like Mali that are still controlled by France, at least by its military forces and its financial system (CFA/West African Franc), slavery was only legally forbidden in 2003.

eesmith 9y ago

You write: "The only nation in your list that benefitted greatly from slave labour is the USA". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Triangular_... : > By the 18th century, the slave trade became a major economic mainstay for such cities as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow, engaged in the so-called "Triangular trade". Further details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade : > Bristol and Liverpool merchants became increasingly involved in the trade.[92] By the late 17th century, one out of every four ships that left Liverpool harbour was a slave trading ship.[93] Much of the wealth on which the city of Manchester, and surrounding towns, was built in the late 18th century, and for much of the 19th century, was based on the processing of slave-picked cotton and manufacture of cloth.[94] Other British cities also profited from the slave trade. Birmingham, the largest gun-producing town in Britain at the time, supplied guns to be traded for slaves.[95] 75% of all sugar produced in the plantations was sent to London, and much of it was consumed in the highly lucrative coffee houses there. ... > By far the most financially profitable West Indian colonies in 1800 belonged to the United Kingdom. ... > It has been estimated that the profits of the slave trade and of West Indian plantations created up to one-in-twenty of every pound circulating in the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 18th century

Supernaut 9y ago
Thank you for your excellent reply. I stand corrected that regard. However, the fact that the period to which your refer is some 250 years in the past supports my wider point that it is specious to claim that the the wealth of current-day first world nations derives from the historic use of slave labour.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Do you still consider it an "absurd generalization"? How many years does it take for the benefits of slavery to disappear? I think it's far longer than you do. British slavery meant more income to the government, which lead to a better navy, which lead to the ability to defend the triangle trade. A better navy helped advance British imperialism. How might Trafalgar have turned out with a weaker British navy? British control of sugar production was built on slavery. But even once the slaves were free in a legal sense, the black population of ex-slaves was still at the bottom of the social ladder. The white landowners kept political and economic control for generations, and the profits went to Britain. In the US, institutionalized racism, not just in localized Jim Crow laws and sundown towns, but also in federal policies like redlining, prevented generations of blacks from getting the same economic benefits as whites. (See Richard Rothstein's “The Color of Law”; interview at http://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america http://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-... .) I know less about British history, but I do know how many thought the "Anglo-Saxon race" was above all others. You earlier wrote: "Furthermore, the civil war that was waged to end slavery ultimately brought economic ruin to the southern States that had relied on slave labour." I don't think you appreciate the full impact of slavery on the US or British economies. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Agitation_against_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#A... : > slavery was entwined with the national economy; for instance, the banking, shipping and manufacturing industries of New York City all had strong economic interests in slavery, as did similar industries in other major port cities in the North. The northern textile mills in New York and New England processed Southern cotton and manufactured clothes to outfit slaves. By 1822 half of New York City's exports were related to cotton and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton#History > By 1860, on the eve of the American Civil War, cotton accounted for almost 60% of American exports, representing a total value of nearly $200 million a year. Even though slavery was banned in the British Empire, Britain still profited from slave labor carried out elsewhere. The cotton mills of Lancashire produced a huge fraction of the world's processed cotton. You know where that cotton came from? The forced labor of American slaves. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Cotton_Famine : > When the slave-owning Southern States of America demanded secession from the United States of America and declared war in 1861, the cotton supply was interrupted at first by a Southern imposed boycott and then a Union blockade. The South's thinking was that it could force British support through an economic boycott. ... Of the 1,390,938,752 lb of raw cotton 1,115,890,608 lb came from America.(80 %) ... Confederate flags were flown in many cotton towns. Britain's economy profited from American slavery even until the 1860s, and they knew it.