4 ms·

Sure the British Navy helped enforce an end to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (slavery, of course, continued for many decades longer on a massive scale in the U

by csb6 5y ago

Sure the British Navy helped enforce an end to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (slavery, of course, continued for many decades longer on a massive scale in the U.S. and Brazil, among others), but the slave trade is just one of the many crimes against humanity that the British Empire committed. Especially when the result of ending slavery was largely the continued use of colonial subjects as cheap, disposable labor, with poverty, mass famine, and violent repression by British forces continuing. The British Empire as a project was inherently a massive resource extraction operation. Slavery was just one method to accomplish this goal, and one that they greatly expanded, developed, and promoted before it became economically advantageous for them to phase out. So I don't think they should get any credit for stopping slave traders.

esyir 5y ago
I've always found the lack of context on slavery's history amusing. In our time, it's considered one of the greatest sins. However, if you look just a bit back, it wasn't exclusive to the English-American line, as the twitter take goes, but was was commonplace across human history. Where you found people, you found slavery. If (and mind you I mean if), the OP here is correct that the British empire had a sizable impact on ending slavery, then they deserve that credit regardless. If they didn't, the that's a far stronger argument to be made.
- csb6 5y ago
  > In our time, it's considered one of the greatest sins. However, if you look just a bit back, it wasn't exclusive to the English-American line, as the twitter take goes, but was was commonplace across human history. Where you found people, you found slavery. Wherever there is slavery, you will also find many people opposed to slavery (e.g. the slaves themselves). The idea of liberating slaves is not new; just look back at Spartacus's revolt, for instance, which was not the only slave revolt in Roman history. People knew it was a brutal institution - they were simply conditioned to believe it was a natural part of life, and the slaveholding classes benefited economically from the practice. Of course slavery is a widespread practice in human history. That makes it more horrific, not less. The fact that the British Empire greatly expanded and commercialized the practice reflects pretty badly on them, IMO. > If (and mind you I mean if), the OP here is correct that the British empire had a sizable impact on ending slavery, then they deserve that credit regardless. I think it is debatable that they had a sizable impact on the end of slavery itself. They definitely did have a big impact in the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade, which, keep in mind, they helped create and massively expand for over a century (at least) prior. Can you really give someone credit for ending a horrific practice they promoted/expanded on such a large, intentional scale? This seems like less than the bare minimum to me. Slavery continued to thrive for many decades in the U.S. and Brazil, among other places. Britain had no qualms in trading with the Confederacy, for instance, a nation explicitly founded on slavery. Nor did it have problems with the tremendous death rates and horrible working conditions of "freed" blacks in their Caribbean colonies.
  - Andaith 5y ago
    As I understand it, they did have a sizeable impact on the end of slavery: From what I remember: They banned slavery in the UK, and later on in all colonies and territories, and applied diplomatic pressure on other nations to also do so. They would inspect the cargoes of other nations for slaves, and this led to several threats of war from the USA and other countries. Also, they would enter Brazilian and other nations ports and seize/destroy property of slavers, and free slaves, etc etc. It would be like the USA doing it today. People would be pissed, but there's no way they're declaring war on the world superpower. The wiki article is quite interesting: The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron purely to end the atlantic slave trade. It consisted of a sixth of the entire RN Fleet at the height of its operation. This whole thing operated for about 50 years. It was considered the most costly international moral action in modern history.
  - esyir 5y ago
    >I think it is debatable that they had a sizable impact on the end of slavery itself. They definitely did have a big impact in the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade, which, keep in mind, they helped create and massively expand for over a century (at least) prior. Can you really give someone credit for ending a horrific practice they promoted/expanded on such a large, intentional scale? This seems like less than the bare minimum to me. I'd say yes, I would give them credit. As slavery was a baseline then, then you'd expect slavery quantity to go up with any expansion. The slavery increase would be incidental to the expansion, not the objective itself. If they did then implement policies that then reduced the proportion of slavery, and I won't repeat /u/Andaith's point that they did, then they deserve credit. Our history rife with things horrific to our modern sensibilities, but to cast away individual steps along the way for their imperfections feels like revisionism.
    - csb6 5y ago
      > Our history rife with things horrific to our modern sensibilities I want to note that slavery was also horrific to vast numbers of people's sensibilities historically as well. Opposing slavery is not a "modern sensibility"; I can confidently say near 100% of slaves (especially those sent to work in British colonies in the Caribbean) found it horrific to their sensibilities as well. Abolitionism has a long history and even people who were not abolitionists were capable of being horrified by the system of slavery, especially if witnessing it up close and first-hand. It is only fairly recently (since the 1800s) that Western government policy and the elite classes have become opposed to chattel slavery, true, but these views do not represent everyone's views.

by csb6 5y ago

esyir 5y ago

I've always found the lack of context on slavery's history amusing. In our time, it's considered one of the greatest sins. However, if you look just a bit back, it wasn't exclusive to the English-American line, as the twitter take goes, but was was commonplace across human history. Where you found people, you found slavery. If (and mind you I mean if), the OP here is correct that the British empire had a sizable impact on ending slavery, then they deserve that credit regardless. If they didn't, the that's a far stronger argument to be made.

csb6 5y ago
> In our time, it's considered one of the greatest sins. However, if you look just a bit back, it wasn't exclusive to the English-American line, as the twitter take goes, but was was commonplace across human history. Where you found people, you found slavery. Wherever there is slavery, you will also find many people opposed to slavery (e.g. the slaves themselves). The idea of liberating slaves is not new; just look back at Spartacus's revolt, for instance, which was not the only slave revolt in Roman history. People knew it was a brutal institution - they were simply conditioned to believe it was a natural part of life, and the slaveholding classes benefited economically from the practice. Of course slavery is a widespread practice in human history. That makes it more horrific, not less. The fact that the British Empire greatly expanded and commercialized the practice reflects pretty badly on them, IMO. > If (and mind you I mean if), the OP here is correct that the British empire had a sizable impact on ending slavery, then they deserve that credit regardless. I think it is debatable that they had a sizable impact on the end of slavery itself. They definitely did have a big impact in the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade, which, keep in mind, they helped create and massively expand for over a century (at least) prior. Can you really give someone credit for ending a horrific practice they promoted/expanded on such a large, intentional scale? This seems like less than the bare minimum to me. Slavery continued to thrive for many decades in the U.S. and Brazil, among other places. Britain had no qualms in trading with the Confederacy, for instance, a nation explicitly founded on slavery. Nor did it have problems with the tremendous death rates and horrible working conditions of "freed" blacks in their Caribbean colonies.
- Andaith 5y ago
  As I understand it, they did have a sizeable impact on the end of slavery: From what I remember: They banned slavery in the UK, and later on in all colonies and territories, and applied diplomatic pressure on other nations to also do so. They would inspect the cargoes of other nations for slaves, and this led to several threats of war from the USA and other countries. Also, they would enter Brazilian and other nations ports and seize/destroy property of slavers, and free slaves, etc etc. It would be like the USA doing it today. People would be pissed, but there's no way they're declaring war on the world superpower. The wiki article is quite interesting: The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron purely to end the atlantic slave trade. It consisted of a sixth of the entire RN Fleet at the height of its operation. This whole thing operated for about 50 years. It was considered the most costly international moral action in modern history.
- esyir 5y ago
  >I think it is debatable that they had a sizable impact on the end of slavery itself. They definitely did have a big impact in the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade, which, keep in mind, they helped create and massively expand for over a century (at least) prior. Can you really give someone credit for ending a horrific practice they promoted/expanded on such a large, intentional scale? This seems like less than the bare minimum to me. I'd say yes, I would give them credit. As slavery was a baseline then, then you'd expect slavery quantity to go up with any expansion. The slavery increase would be incidental to the expansion, not the objective itself. If they did then implement policies that then reduced the proportion of slavery, and I won't repeat /u/Andaith's point that they did, then they deserve credit. Our history rife with things horrific to our modern sensibilities, but to cast away individual steps along the way for their imperfections feels like revisionism.
  - csb6 5y ago
    > Our history rife with things horrific to our modern sensibilities I want to note that slavery was also horrific to vast numbers of people's sensibilities historically as well. Opposing slavery is not a "modern sensibility"; I can confidently say near 100% of slaves (especially those sent to work in British colonies in the Caribbean) found it horrific to their sensibilities as well. Abolitionism has a long history and even people who were not abolitionists were capable of being horrified by the system of slavery, especially if witnessing it up close and first-hand. It is only fairly recently (since the 1800s) that Western government policy and the elite classes have become opposed to chattel slavery, true, but these views do not represent everyone's views.