7 ms·

I'm not sure what history books you are reading, but Britain did, in fact, have slavery, and traded in slaves during the American Revolution. Trade of slaves wa

I'm not sure what history books you are reading, but Britain did, in fact, have slavery, and traded in slaves during the American Revolution. Trade of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1807 and ownership of slaves was not outlawed in Britain until 1833.

tialaramex 6y ago
History books about things that happened rather than, say, squinting hard to rationalise unhappy truths? Britain didn't have slavery†. The 1833 act abolishes slavery in the Colonies, not in Britain itself. The existence of slavery in the colonies is why there were slaves in America to seek freedom by fighting for the British there. So like I said, the British freed those on their side, while the colonists unsurprisingly did not do likewise. This is a recorded motivation for the thing we're talking about, fighting for the British in the revolutionary war. †Britain didn't have chattel slavery, which is what we're talking about here, but it did have serfdom - which today we would consider a type of slavery - until the late middle ages or so when it ceased to make economic sense.
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  Another fun fact (I'm full of them today): while chattel slavery has never existed at a meaningful level in Britain, the specific act of holding someone in slavery wasn't technically made illegal here until 2009: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_200...
- Cyder 6y ago
  So Britain didn't exist until 1833? It wouldn't have been in the US if Britain didn't bring it.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    No? Britain didn't have slavery, it didn't have it before that 1833 Act, and it still didn't have it afterward. The Act's title begins: "An Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies" because it's about abolishing slavery in the colonies. By this time of course Americans - who still want slavery - have successfully rebelled and are independent and so this law does not affect the millions of slaves in the United States of America. The Colonies weren't Britain. Their people weren't (on the whole) British citizens, if you knew a bit more history that year might stand out more. 1833 is just after Great Reform, the country has become more small-D democratic, expanding the franchise (the right to vote) to more men and eliminating "Rotten boroughs" which were often in practice controlled by rich people, including slaveowner colonists abroad.
    - meiraleal 6y ago
      When Foxxconn uses slave labor to produce iphones, are they Apple's iPhones?

tialaramex 6y ago

History books about things that happened rather than, say, squinting hard to rationalise unhappy truths? Britain didn't have slavery†. The 1833 act abolishes slavery in the Colonies, not in Britain itself. The existence of slavery in the colonies is why there were slaves in America to seek freedom by fighting for the British there. So like I said, the British freed those on their side, while the colonists unsurprisingly did not do likewise. This is a recorded motivation for the thing we're talking about, fighting for the British in the revolutionary war. †Britain didn't have chattel slavery, which is what we're talking about here, but it did have serfdom - which today we would consider a type of slavery - until the late middle ages or so when it ceased to make economic sense.

whoooooo123 6y ago
Another fun fact (I'm full of them today): while chattel slavery has never existed at a meaningful level in Britain, the specific act of holding someone in slavery wasn't technically made illegal here until 2009: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroners_and_Justice_Act_200...
Cyder 6y ago
So Britain didn't exist until 1833? It wouldn't have been in the US if Britain didn't bring it.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  No? Britain didn't have slavery, it didn't have it before that 1833 Act, and it still didn't have it afterward. The Act's title begins: "An Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies" because it's about abolishing slavery in the colonies. By this time of course Americans - who still want slavery - have successfully rebelled and are independent and so this law does not affect the millions of slaves in the United States of America. The Colonies weren't Britain. Their people weren't (on the whole) British citizens, if you knew a bit more history that year might stand out more. 1833 is just after Great Reform, the country has become more small-D democratic, expanding the franchise (the right to vote) to more men and eliminating "Rotten boroughs" which were often in practice controlled by rich people, including slaveowner colonists abroad.
  - meiraleal 6y ago
    When Foxxconn uses slave labor to produce iphones, are they Apple's iPhones?