Joined Jun 2017
44 Posts | 10+
Upper Canada
Aren't some countries unfairly vilified for their slavery/colonial past?
- Thread starter notgivenaway
- Start date
Joined Oct 2011
1,167 Posts | 656+
Croatia
It is actually easy to check:
Liberalism: free trade, minimal state, minimal laws
Marxism: controlled trade, extensive state, laws in function of control of society - extensive laws and state interventionism in society
Conservativism: trade protectionism, state in function of safety, tradition and custom as basis of laws
Many people who label themselves "liberals" are in fact Marxists. See above; if they request state intervention, such as forcing priests to marry ... couples, having state pass "hate speech" laws and so on, they are not liberals.
Possibly Prussia as well.
That's confused. There's nothing remotely Marxist about any of that. Especially when the basis for insisting on it is precisely legislated equal rights for all individual citizens. (The underlying idea is that equality should not apply to individuals from disliked minorities.)
The salient difference is between how ownership and rule of law is treated. Where the government owns the means of production and rule-of-law does not apply (China these days most importantly) that is an illiberal dictatorship. Liberal societies are based precisely on the protection of private property (including extended to the rights of all individual citizens more generally), as upheld by the rule-of-law. It's what defines the free and open society.
Is suspect this is more of the seriously confused US politics version of "identity politics", which is a bane on society whether it comes from the radical right or the left – but the radical right and the radical left is actually in cahoots over it, in their attacks on the free and open liberal society. By my count that's an excellent reason for non-Amricans to simply stop listening to Americans – too damn confused.
Point being it was an English colony until the Paris accord of 1783 and subject to English Law, at least to the English. Slavery was already entrenched in some of the colonys and served as a model for further expansion of the practice. There were a great many American's who were "evangelical" against slavery too. English salvery is mostly airbrushed because after they lost their North American colony slavery by English Landowners was mostly in the big plantations of the Caribbean. They were far more lenient to slave owners then British slave traders, I suspect that was what got Parliment to pass the various slave acts because 800,000 slaves, owned by 46,000 English slave owners, does not need a transatlantic route since slaves reproduce on their own. My cynicism towards the 1833 abolition act is based on the fact the slaves got nothing and the slave owners everything costing 40% of the Brtish budget of 1844. The biggest buy out since the bank buy out of 2009. Plus the slaves still had to work for free for an additional 4 years and weren't actually "free" to work for sub substance wages until 1838. It sounds more like compromise with the wealthy then righteousness to me. A theme repeated often in slave owning Nation states.
Also dont forget England was so keen on cheap cotton for their textile mills, among other reasons, they considered joining the Confederate side 30 years later. Not doing so only because it was obvious to anyone the Confederacy didn't have the Industrial capacity to win a modern war. So English evangelicalism seemed to be tempered where profit was concerned. Besides there was Asia to exploit and slavery in India wasn't codified in Law as a crime until 1861. Even after all this righteous wrath various forms of indentured servitude were enforced within the British Empire so thats another thing the Movie Amistad got right, "Its all about commerce" and no matter what cute little names you replace it with its still slavery.
Even Abe Lincoln has been airbrushed as the Great Emancipator. He was willing to live with confederate slavery as long as it kept the Union intact and he didn't seriously commit the Northern Navy to the blockade of the Transatlantic slave route, or give permission for British ships to board American flagged merchant ships, until it became a useful tool to weaken the Confederacy.
The American civil war caused considerable harm on the English textile Industry upon which their Industrial revolution depended and there was plenty of sympathy for the Confederacy among the average out of work English mill worker.
Also dont forget England was so keen on cheap cotton for their textile mills, among other reasons, they considered joining the Confederate side 30 years later. Not doing so only because it was obvious to anyone the Confederacy didn't have the Industrial capacity to win a modern war. So English evangelicalism seemed to be tempered where profit was concerned. Besides there was Asia to exploit and slavery in India wasn't codified in Law as a crime until 1861. Even after all this righteous wrath various forms of indentured servitude were enforced within the British Empire so thats another thing the Movie Amistad got right, "Its all about commerce" and no matter what cute little names you replace it with its still slavery.
Even Abe Lincoln has been airbrushed as the Great Emancipator. He was willing to live with confederate slavery as long as it kept the Union intact and he didn't seriously commit the Northern Navy to the blockade of the Transatlantic slave route, or give permission for British ships to board American flagged merchant ships, until it became a useful tool to weaken the Confederacy.
The American civil war caused considerable harm on the English textile Industry upon which their Industrial revolution depended and there was plenty of sympathy for the Confederacy among the average out of work English mill worker.
Joined Oct 2011
1,167 Posts | 656+
Croatia
Define equal rights. Why should ... couples be given right to adopt children? They cannot have children on their own, which means that it is outright impossible to have equal rights in that situation, because means are not equal. Do you give equal opportunity at a starting line, or you aim for equal outcome? Also, the assumption behind it is that children are just objects which can be transferred around. Lastly, who decides which couple can adopt children? Usually the state - which means that state intervention is necessary, which automatically leads to a more authoritarian society.
There are actually two main points of differentiation:
1) social policies (progressivism vs traditionalism)
2) economic policies (liberalism vs socialism)
Ownership only covers the point 2). If government dictates how you should act through laws - which can be chaged at will - as opposed to tradition (which just is, and can be changed only gradually), then you are living in an authoritarian society, no matter how liberal the economy is. So while protection of property is a major point, it is not the only one that matters.
Joined Jan 2017
7,817 Posts | 3,302+
Republika Srpska
That is the main reason any couple adopts.
Sometimes the state intervention is neccessary in order to get everyone equal opportunity. Not every group starts with the same life chances.
Joined Jan 2019
403 Posts | 256+
Finland
I get the idea that equality should be at the front end rather at the back end, ie equality of opportunity is good, equality of outcome is not, but I don't understand how your point about .... being able to adopt children because they can't have them on their own is part of that. Isn't that the reason why people often adopt, because they cannot have children? An infertile heterosexual couple or a single person should not be able to adopt then?
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
Yet them part of the movie complained about is actually pretty accurate.
We could argue figures and time periods etc but my point is while I can justifiably point to the strenuous efforts of the British against slavery I must also concede that they were huge slavers as well at different points in history.
'America' has many meanings its a continent but also is commonly used to refer to citizens of the USA.
I mainly put it in speech marks because I do not like to say British people thought or did this or that as if they are one simple entity there were British who who were pro slavery, anti-slavery and some who couldn't care less-- the same for American, Portuguese etc
Agree
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
You can point the finger of hypocrisy at the British because while English common law for did not allow for slavery that only applied to England and not its colonies who had their own legal system.
'American' (that is British colonists) were warned not to bring their slaves to mainland Britain because of how they were treated by the 'common orders' encouraged them to 'run'-- once such case (Sumersett) resulted in the court ruling that effectively (although not directly in law) made slavery illegal in mainland Britain.
However there is no police force your slave is going to have to be a student of the law and have the money to employ a lawyer to attain his/her freedom.
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
I am not questioning that. I questioned that historical accuracy is rarely the main objective of historical fiction. Recently I saw a thing that I never had seen before (my ignorance!) a docudrama, I even question if the accuracy there is the main objective.
The general figures are not much debatable. The differences that we can have in the numbers are minimal. There are critics that some ships and their cargo was counted more than one time, but even with the still existing errors that doesn’t change the all picture: Portugal was the leading Atlantic Slave trader from the beginning until the 18th century and then again in part of the 19th until the end. In the 18th century it was the UK. For the all period it was Portugal:
Estimates
(this, even with its errors, it is probably the best database on the subject)
“Americanos” (Americans) was also a word used to designate the Spanish Americans and Portuguese Americans, outside the British colonies in the Caribbean/Thirteen Colonies/USA, particularly in the 19th century. The word was not only used by the English to designate their colonists in America. But, with the growing use of the English it lost weight over the time, today is almost unheard.
Agreed. Generalizations can be misleading.
I tend to avoid moralization about the past. Many colonial powers had different laws in the mainland and in the colonies. Still today.
But they also had often the same. It is complex.
I am currently at hands with “Slavery and the British Empire – From Africa to America”, by Kenneth Morgan and “Race in Early Modern England”, Compiled and Edited by Ania Loomba and Jonathan Burton.
And interesting passage about laws and religion, from the second book:
“In Barbados, when Richard Ligon spoke to a plantation owner in the 1640s concerning the request of a slave to be converted, he was told that “the people of that island were governed by the laws of England, and by those laws we could not make a Christian a slave.” Upon Ligon’s clarifying that his desire was “to make a slave a Christian,” he was told that “being once a Christian, he could no more account him a slave,” and thus was “poor ..... kept out of the Church, as ingenious, as honest, and as good natured poor soul as ever wore black or eat green . . .” At the same time, the possibility of conversion could also be invoked as a justification for English slavery: “It being a means to better these people, and likewise have influence on these they sell as slaves to the English to persuade them, that by their slavery, their condition will be bettered by their access to knowledge, Arts and Sciences.” (41) In a tract reproduced here, Morgan Godwyn reminded his readers that “in regard religion would be apt to create a conscience in their slaves, it might be convenient, in order to make them truer servants.”” p. 11.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
Actually English common law did not apply to the colonies so for instance the Somersett Case did not apply to America . And any student of history should know that in both the ARW and the war of 1812 the British made a point of trying to gain support amoung the slave population.
Of course there were American abolitionists just as there were Britons in favour of slavery , rarely are there nice clean cut divisions in history
Sorry British slavery is not airbrushed quite the contrary in fact its the abolition movement that gets little limelight.
And yes the British tax payer spent a great deal of money to free slaves (virtually none of whom were anywhere near Britain) and that seems unjust (as opposed to the USA where they simply remained slaves?) but what was supposed to happen? the plantation owners had done nothing illegal? could parliament simply take property like that? rather sound rather 'socialist'.
And yes the rich looked after each other but the fact remains that the British abolished slavery even though it hurt them financially and were very active in trying to combat the trade internationally and the measures had a huge amount of popular support. For instance the abolitionist campaign featured one of the first cases of a consumer boycott in modern history.
The British did not support the Confederacy ,although of course it had its supporters, and one of the main reasons being that the British were so anti-slavery and yes of course other abuses under different names continued throughout its Empire and throughout the world but isn't that the case for everywhere? there are more slaves world wide today than ever, the largest number or in India-- that the fault of the British?
The fact remain that the British became (after being huge slavers) very anti-slavery while much of the USA did not and the British were at the forefront of the campaign (that had supporters and opponents in all places) against the trade, you may not like it but its a fact.
Perhaps but little support to get involved in the war and slavery had little popular support. That does not mean there were not British people who did not support slavery or take part in the slave trade in fact many of the sailors and ships that took part in the now illegal trade were still British (they had the biggest merchant fleet and as a result a huge pool of specialised labour) it was just that they now faced increasing draconian laws that saw them treated as common criminals.
Joined May 2011
15,791 Posts | 1,621+
Navan, Ireland
Films are for entertainment nothing more-- while I love films set in an historical context and love them and get frustrated (to varying degrees) when they move away from historical 'truth' (whatever that is!) especially when the 'truth' can be equally as interesting, their only duty is to entertain.
A good example is Mel Gibsons 'The Patriot' the British are shown as 'pantomime' villains so I dislike that but that's what the films audience wants so poor me (now I know what a German feels like watching numerous WWII movies) but the films treatment of African Americans is quite disturbing basically implying they were already free and the 'patriots' were fighting for their freedom against British wishes.
Docudramas should be more truthful but its still very much up to the film maker and their interpretation of history.
I am not going to disagree and debate figures my point being as much as I may support the British anti-slavery efforts I would be hypocritical not to acknowledge how big a part they played in the slave trade.
Even after British abolition of the trade and slavery many British continued in the trade and or get on practices that were little different to slavery-- such is the world.
Languages changes with time.
But unfortunately 'we' are very fond of them.
'English' law may have been the base for colonial laws but as time moved they had their own legal systems. In the 17th century Britain also had 'indentured servitude' which was little different from slavery at times.
The US conquered its portion of North America through Indian Wars and through brief wars with Mexico. Texas was not yet part of its acquisition until it too broke away on its own from Mexico in 1836. Texas struggled economically until it joined the US which agreed to assume Texas’ public debt. One feature of this that made it distinct from other acquisitions, is that Texas’ public lands were not taken over by the Federal government.
California, Texas and other formerly Mexican territories along the southern border at the time were quite empty and undeveloped. Even in California, the Mexican presence had been light.
It is true that both Texas and California both became economic powerhouses in the US economy but back then, they were just empty, filled with unrealized potential. California’s economy is a good bit larger than Texas’ and a good bit more “hi-tech” compared to Texas’ oil-based economy.
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
I mostly agree with you, I just quoted this part because I find it interesting, and it was probably the part that I didn’t fully agree. You say “I may support…” and that leads me to the question: “how do you support a series of events that happened almost two hundred years ago?”
This question has to do with how we look to history. Are we a support group of the faction “A”? Or are we interested in it to better understand the past?
Note that these are rhetorical questions, not necessarily made to be answered here.
Joined Oct 2013
24,148 Posts | 6,119+
Europix
"Aren't some countries unfairly vilified for their slavery/colonial past?"
The answer remains the same: yes, they are. Example:
_________
PS: and it's "Congo", not "congo" and "Belgium", not "belgium".
The answer remains the same: yes, they are. Example:
_________
PS: and it's "Congo", not "congo" and "Belgium", not "belgium".
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
Joined Jul 2019
1,936 Posts | 6,397+
Ghana
Last edited:
Is it such a prevalent myth? I mean, it says it right there in the name, doesn't it? "Free State". Much of the criticism directed against Belgium stems from the Belgian colonial period in Congo, known as Belgian Congo 1908 - 1960, which was a period that saw continued atrocities across the country including mass forced labor, mass forced relocations, heavily restricted movement for natives, apartheid-like conditions, kidnapping of mixed race children etc, and eventually culminating with the Belgian assisted assassination of Lumumba.
I actually remember a conversation I had with an old Belgian colonial who was quite vivid in his descriptions of his stay there. He said it was quite bad. Congolese people were still being treated like slaves when he was there, and he wasn't that old. I suspect he was there in the 40's or the 50's... Interestingly, he said that the "Greeks were the worst", referring to Greek companies active there that were still whipping people for minor offenses.
There is still a lot more about Congo that remains untold, than what is told. And I'm sure a lot of gritty details are still locked away in some obscure archives in Belgium, if they haven't been burned by now, like what happened to Leopold's archives...
Come on, there were Human zoos with Congolese people in Brussels until 1958...
Not until 2019 did the Belgian state apologize to the kidnapped mixed race children (seniors by now). The father of someone I know was one of those kids. Seriously traumatizing stuff. It's not something you can just sweep under the carpet like it never happened when the victims of such crimes are still alive, and never received justice, and in most cases have no hopes of reconnecting with either their Belgian, much less their Congolese families.
It's not a matter of creating a sense of national guilt, but creating a certain consciousness about the things that happened. I schooled in Belgium. If it wasn't for my personal insisting, we would have learnt next to nothing about Congo, which is simply unacceptable. I understand that some people are now learning about Congo in school, but there is still a general sense of willful ignorance, if I dare say, in much of Belgium, and a continued desire to see the colonial period as a "civilization mission".
Joined May 2016
12,115 Posts | 4,890+
Portugal
Yes, I think the “myth” exists in Pop-history that the Free State of Congo was a Belgium colony.
I also think that the conditions of the Africans “slightly” improved when it turned to a Belgium colony. Not because the conditions were good for the black people (like you said, they surely weren’t), but because of the scandal and the low previous point it was almost difficult to get worse. So I think that in historical terms it is relevant do divide both periods. But I know much less about the Belgian colony, so feel free to correct me here.
As for the period after the independence, as the events around the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, I also think that it is preferable to put it in another time period, for a better analysis. We don’t know if the Belgians were directly involved in the assassination (well, I don’t know), surely indirectly they were with their semi-undercover support to the Catanga. The idea that I have from that confuse period is that Lumumba turned too much to the Soviet bloc, so he didn’t had much supporters in the West, being them Belgians, French, British, from the USA, or Portuguese that still controlled Angola at the time.
By the way didn’t knew that Leopold's archives were burned! Sad.
Joined Oct 2013
24,148 Posts | 6,119+
Europix
Sundiata, I am coming, if it's You calling!
And it isn't a joke, it's true: we can talk, and I know that with You there can be a discussion on historical reality, not on stereotypes. But, as tulius pointed out, too many do not know or even heard about Free State of Congo.
Way too many people talk about Belgium hands cut in the Free State of Congo and way too few talk about Belgium and Lumumba's assassination for example.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-