4 ms·

> Do you still consider it an "absurd generalization"? Yes, I do. I concede that you have demonstrated that economic benefits from slave labour continued to ac

> Do you still consider it an "absurd generalization"? Yes, I do. I concede that you have demonstrated that economic benefits from slave labour continued to accrue to the UK economy until the 19th century. However, it is simply not true to flatly claim, as did the OP, that "Most rich countries are rich because they build their wealth on free labor (slavery)".

eesmith 9y ago
And the French economy. Quoting from http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/routes/places-involved/europe/france/ http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/routes/places-invol... : > French traders were heavily involved in the slave trade. From 1721-30, French ships took 85,000 enslaved Africans to the plantations in the Americas and the Caribbean. In the 1730s, they carried more than 100,000. Altogether, about 1,250,000 enslaved Africans were taken by French ships. Even after France abolished the trade, 500 French ships continued slave trading illegally between 1818 and 1831. Quoting now from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-confronts-slavery-a-demon-of-its-past/2016/05/28/0bf61b3e-2128-11e6-b944-52f7b1793dae_story.html?utm_term=.febc40e755e0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-confronts... : > In the 18th and 19th centuries, France was among the major European slave-trading nations, capturing and selling an estimated 1.4 million people before leaders outlawed slavery in 1848. > The country’s coffers grew rich from colonial conquests in Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, where slave labor generated the commodities that French merchants then sold in Europe. > When metropolitan France finally outlawed slavery — a generation before the United States — liberation brought freedom only in theory for many blacks in French territories overseas. > “Slavery was abolished, and the old slaves became citizens,” said the historian Frédéric Regent, a renowned expert on the French slave trade. “They even elected deputies. But the plantation economy continued with the same masters, who then became ‘employers.’ ” > “What was different between that and slavery?” Tin asked. “Nothing.” > This form of economic subjugation overseas persisted well into the 1960s, when France, crippled by two world wars, lost its former empire. Many argue that the injustice persists today in the form of socioeconomic disparity between young whites and blacks, increasingly confined to peripheral suburbs and low-paying jobs. > “It’s from slavery that we have the discrimination we have today and the racism we see in France today,” said Myriam Cottias, a historian and member of the government-sponsored foundation, in a telephone interview from Martinique. > “It’s not yet totally done in France. France has many, many institutional links to slavery.” Yet again, even though slavery was officially abolished, the "economic benefits from slave labour continued to accrue". Even to the present.
- Supernaut 9y ago
  I note that the examples that you cite above are all nations that were relatively wealthy to begin with. They did not suddenly lift themselves out of poverty in the 17th century by enslaving Africans. Rather, their advanced technology and capital resources enabled them to dominate and exploit other populations, either through slave trading or colonisation. In doing this, they did further enrich themselves, true, but to state that this shameful period is actually the wellspring from which these nations' wealth derives in the 21st century is dramatic overreach.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    My objection is to your statement that it's absurd. I agree that it's an exaggeration, and even that it's wrong, but it's not absurd. The further back in time you go, the more the framework changes. How did those nations become relatively wealthy in the first place? How much was due to serfdom? Combined, of course, with the new political philosophy which centralized absolute power for the sovereign. (As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_the_Abolition_of_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_th... helpfully points out, the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery also prohibits serfdom.) But by doing that, the problem is that most areas in Europe had serfs. I think in Europe only some of the Nordic countries did not. (On the original topic, Sweden's era as a great power was funded by its copper export, and not from slaves or serfs.) And many cultures had slaves or participated in the slave trade, including those that weren't great powers, so slavery, serfdom, and other forms of forced labor are not really diagnostic. Do you have an idea of how much of the those nations' wealth derives from slavery? I don't think it's an easy thing to answer. It's clearly not "zero".
eesmith 9y ago
The Netherlands. Quoting from http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/book-reviews/15366-the-dutch-atlantic-slavery-abolition-and-emancipation http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/book-reviews/1... > The Dutch role in the slave trade is said to be minor, but Kwame Nimako shows that although the Dutch colonies in the Americas might have been few and small compared to the Spanish, Portuguese and British colonies, the Dutch were, because of their well-built vessels and good seamanship, very active in the actual transport of slaves both for their own colonies and for others. Between 1600-1650 the Netherlands replaced Britain as the second major transatlantic transporter ... > The state was very much involved in the slave trade: brokerage and pilot fees were required by the state, gifts to rulers were sometimes required, permits had to be purchased and agreements with other enslaving nations were made. There was government protection of sugar refining between 1650-1680 (p.73). The slave ships required a crew twice the size of a normal commercial ship, since ‘unwilling passengers’ might revolt. The transportation of slaves was never a normal business but needed state support. ‘The treaties that shaped the formation of some of the major European states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were tied to control of or negation about the Atlantic slave trade, annexation and colonisation of other people’s land and subjugation of other people’ ... > The Dutch colonies of Suriname and the Dutch Antilles had their complement of slaves, though these were fewer in number than in the British colonies. ... > Unlike Britain, in Holland there was no movement for the abolition of slavery. The Dutch ignored the 1794 French declaration of liberty for slaves, even though they adopted many French laws when under French control in the Napoleonic period. ... > Nimako shows that, contrary to supposition, the Dutch still found slavery profitable at the time of abolition, since they deferred the latter until after the produce had been harvested. Further, the slave-owners wanted compensation for the loss of their slaves after abolition. The enslavers were compensated, but the former slaves received nothing, not even the much smaller amount they were supposed to receive. In fact the compensation granted to the enslavers came from the enslaved and most went not to the colonies but to slave owners living in the Netherlands
eesmith 9y ago
I do think the original statement is wrong. Many of the rich countries are rich because of oil, not slavery. These include Norway, the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Brunei. Still, I do not find it an absurd generalization. How many rich countries do you think are rich because they built their wealth on slavery? While it's not slavery, does that number change if it were generalized to include indentured servitude or forced labor? For example, Belgium benefited from forced labor in the Belgium Congo. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo : > After the First World War, ... the colonial state gave private companies, to a large extent, a free hand. This allowed, in particular, the Belgian Société Générale to build up an economic empire in the colony. Huge profits were generated[by whom?] and for a large part siphoned off to Europe in the form of dividends. ... > The necessary work-force was recruited in the interior of the vast colony with the active support of the territorial administration. In many cases, this amounted to forced labour, as in many villages minimum quotas of "able-bodied workers" to be recruited were enforced. In this way, tens of thousands of workers were transferred from the interior to the sparsely populated copper belt in the south (Katanga) to work in the mines. In agriculture, too, the colonial state forced a drastic rationalisation of production. The state took over so-called "vacant lands" (land not directly used by local tribes) and redistributed the territory to European companies, to individual white landowners (colons), or to the missions ... > During the First World War (1914-1918), the system of "mandatory cultivation" (cultures obligatoires) was introduced, forcing Congolese peasants to grow certain cash crops (cotton, coffee, groundnuts) destined as commodities for export.[31] Territorial administrators and state agronomists had the task of supervising and, if necessary, sanctioning those peasants who evaded the hated mandatory cultivation

eesmith 9y ago

And the French economy. Quoting from http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/routes/places-involved/europe/france/ http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/routes/places-invol... : > French traders were heavily involved in the slave trade. From 1721-30, French ships took 85,000 enslaved Africans to the plantations in the Americas and the Caribbean. In the 1730s, they carried more than 100,000. Altogether, about 1,250,000 enslaved Africans were taken by French ships. Even after France abolished the trade, 500 French ships continued slave trading illegally between 1818 and 1831. Quoting now from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-confronts-slavery-a-demon-of-its-past/2016/05/28/0bf61b3e-2128-11e6-b944-52f7b1793dae_story.html?utm_term=.febc40e755e0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/france-confronts... : > In the 18th and 19th centuries, France was among the major European slave-trading nations, capturing and selling an estimated 1.4 million people before leaders outlawed slavery in 1848. > The country’s coffers grew rich from colonial conquests in Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, where slave labor generated the commodities that French merchants then sold in Europe. > When metropolitan France finally outlawed slavery — a generation before the United States — liberation brought freedom only in theory for many blacks in French territories overseas. > “Slavery was abolished, and the old slaves became citizens,” said the historian Frédéric Regent, a renowned expert on the French slave trade. “They even elected deputies. But the plantation economy continued with the same masters, who then became ‘employers.’ ” > “What was different between that and slavery?” Tin asked. “Nothing.” > This form of economic subjugation overseas persisted well into the 1960s, when France, crippled by two world wars, lost its former empire. Many argue that the injustice persists today in the form of socioeconomic disparity between young whites and blacks, increasingly confined to peripheral suburbs and low-paying jobs. > “It’s from slavery that we have the discrimination we have today and the racism we see in France today,” said Myriam Cottias, a historian and member of the government-sponsored foundation, in a telephone interview from Martinique. > “It’s not yet totally done in France. France has many, many institutional links to slavery.” Yet again, even though slavery was officially abolished, the "economic benefits from slave labour continued to accrue". Even to the present.

Supernaut 9y ago
I note that the examples that you cite above are all nations that were relatively wealthy to begin with. They did not suddenly lift themselves out of poverty in the 17th century by enslaving Africans. Rather, their advanced technology and capital resources enabled them to dominate and exploit other populations, either through slave trading or colonisation. In doing this, they did further enrich themselves, true, but to state that this shameful period is actually the wellspring from which these nations' wealth derives in the 21st century is dramatic overreach.
- eesmith 9y ago
  My objection is to your statement that it's absurd. I agree that it's an exaggeration, and even that it's wrong, but it's not absurd. The further back in time you go, the more the framework changes. How did those nations become relatively wealthy in the first place? How much was due to serfdom? Combined, of course, with the new political philosophy which centralized absolute power for the sovereign. (As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_the_Abolition_of_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_Convention_on_th... helpfully points out, the United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery also prohibits serfdom.) But by doing that, the problem is that most areas in Europe had serfs. I think in Europe only some of the Nordic countries did not. (On the original topic, Sweden's era as a great power was funded by its copper export, and not from slaves or serfs.) And many cultures had slaves or participated in the slave trade, including those that weren't great powers, so slavery, serfdom, and other forms of forced labor are not really diagnostic. Do you have an idea of how much of the those nations' wealth derives from slavery? I don't think it's an easy thing to answer. It's clearly not "zero".

eesmith 9y ago

The Netherlands. Quoting from http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/book-reviews/15366-the-dutch-atlantic-slavery-abolition-and-emancipation http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/book-reviews/1... > The Dutch role in the slave trade is said to be minor, but Kwame Nimako shows that although the Dutch colonies in the Americas might have been few and small compared to the Spanish, Portuguese and British colonies, the Dutch were, because of their well-built vessels and good seamanship, very active in the actual transport of slaves both for their own colonies and for others. Between 1600-1650 the Netherlands replaced Britain as the second major transatlantic transporter ... > The state was very much involved in the slave trade: brokerage and pilot fees were required by the state, gifts to rulers were sometimes required, permits had to be purchased and agreements with other enslaving nations were made. There was government protection of sugar refining between 1650-1680 (p.73). The slave ships required a crew twice the size of a normal commercial ship, since ‘unwilling passengers’ might revolt. The transportation of slaves was never a normal business but needed state support. ‘The treaties that shaped the formation of some of the major European states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were tied to control of or negation about the Atlantic slave trade, annexation and colonisation of other people’s land and subjugation of other people’ ... > The Dutch colonies of Suriname and the Dutch Antilles had their complement of slaves, though these were fewer in number than in the British colonies. ... > Unlike Britain, in Holland there was no movement for the abolition of slavery. The Dutch ignored the 1794 French declaration of liberty for slaves, even though they adopted many French laws when under French control in the Napoleonic period. ... > Nimako shows that, contrary to supposition, the Dutch still found slavery profitable at the time of abolition, since they deferred the latter until after the produce had been harvested. Further, the slave-owners wanted compensation for the loss of their slaves after abolition. The enslavers were compensated, but the former slaves received nothing, not even the much smaller amount they were supposed to receive. In fact the compensation granted to the enslavers came from the enslaved and most went not to the colonies but to slave owners living in the Netherlands

eesmith 9y ago

I do think the original statement is wrong. Many of the rich countries are rich because of oil, not slavery. These include Norway, the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Brunei. Still, I do not find it an absurd generalization. How many rich countries do you think are rich because they built their wealth on slavery? While it's not slavery, does that number change if it were generalized to include indentured servitude or forced labor? For example, Belgium benefited from forced labor in the Belgium Congo. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo : > After the First World War, ... the colonial state gave private companies, to a large extent, a free hand. This allowed, in particular, the Belgian Société Générale to build up an economic empire in the colony. Huge profits were generated[by whom?] and for a large part siphoned off to Europe in the form of dividends. ... > The necessary work-force was recruited in the interior of the vast colony with the active support of the territorial administration. In many cases, this amounted to forced labour, as in many villages minimum quotas of "able-bodied workers" to be recruited were enforced. In this way, tens of thousands of workers were transferred from the interior to the sparsely populated copper belt in the south (Katanga) to work in the mines. In agriculture, too, the colonial state forced a drastic rationalisation of production. The state took over so-called "vacant lands" (land not directly used by local tribes) and redistributed the territory to European companies, to individual white landowners (colons), or to the missions ... > During the First World War (1914-1918), the system of "mandatory cultivation" (cultures obligatoires) was introduced, forcing Congolese peasants to grow certain cash crops (cotton, coffee, groundnuts) destined as commodities for export.[31] Territorial administrators and state agronomists had the task of supervising and, if necessary, sanctioning those peasants who evaded the hated mandatory cultivation