Current Affairs George Floyd and Minneapolis Unrest

[Disgruntledgoat]

So why was it abolished in 1800, ish?

The trading of slaves throughout the empire was outlawed in 1807 with owners forced to free their existing slaves through the Abolition Act in 1833.

From memory, and if you disagree I'll go look it up because I'm not 100% certain the slavery act of 1800 outlawed the use of mainland british ports to transport slaves as well as recognising forms of bonded labour that were present (but not overwhelmingly so) in the Scottish coal mining industry as slavery and outlawing them.

If we are talking slavery as in owning people as chattel it has been illegal in English common law since the Normans and that ruling was upheld by numerous court rulings throughout that period (including freeing of slaves owned by British citizens as soon as they set foot on English soil) until the 1775 decision in favour of the aforementioned mine owners. That, and the erosion of the common laws was what moved Wilberforce and others to codify what was already accepted law.

 

[tsubaki]

Sorry mate but this is a ridiculous rewrite of history. Slavery was socially acceptable for a very long time. You'll be able to find isolated examples of advocates throughout history but the overwhelming majority either turned a blind eye or simply didn't care. The rich simply got richer from them as a commodity.

Even the Valladolid debate you mention was 16th century and effectively the first time the notion had ever been discussed. It was the 19th century when it was abolished in England. The landscape changed gradually, but let's not pretend it was anything less than unaminous public opinion that black people were basically animals to be treated as property for hundreds of years.

In Edward Colston's era, the 17th century, his trade was seen as completely normal by society at large. That's an indisputable fact. It was very much "the done thing".

If you use "socially acceptable" as the rule of thumb then yes, it was acceptable for some of the rich to profit from slavery just as it was acceptable for some of them to mistreat the poor, use torture, steal lands and properties and kill people on the slightest pretext, after trials that lasted minutes.

The point was that it was never unopposed, never treated as just another way of making money (as @Kenshin was trying to claim). There is quite a big difference between the people who "invested" in that trade and - to use its most obvious contrast - with what became the East India Company.

Also FWIW the trade (at least in the form it did for the next two hundred and fifty years) didn't really exist that much earlier than Valladolid, for reasons that are obvious (the Americas hadn't been discovered, the lack of any need to import labour domestically etc). Nor were people in the UK that exposed to it, given how (relatively) few actual slaves came here.

 

[the sniderman]

They can mock away, I was wrong on 1 part of my argument that I've been called out on and fair enough, my point still stands you can't hold people from the past accountable for their actions using today's standards, if that were the case pretty much every British King or Queen should have their statues/monuments taken down. There could be something that we all do today and take for granted that will be looked at in horror in 200 years time... all history good and bad needs to be preserved, Colston did alot of good for the city of Bristol yes he was also involved in other not so good activities.. take Queen Victoria did lots of good for England you'd be hard pressed to find an English person who would criticise her too much, ask an Irish person and it's a totally different story, the famine queen ruled Ireland at a time when a million + people starved to death and she had the navy intercept aid destined for Ireland and the crown was actively taking what food was grown in Ireland to feed English people, would some Irish people taking a trip to England under an Irish lives matter banner to pull down statues of Victoria be given the same applause?

yes i think they would be widely applauded buddy so i suggest u and some friends go over and make some great history.

 

[Death]

I didn’t know Muhammad could shred it on the banjo back in the day.

 

[tsubaki]

They can mock away, I was wrong on 1 part of my argument that I've been called out on and fair enough, my point still stands you can't hold people from the past accountable for their actions using today's standards, if that were the case pretty much every British King or Queen should have their statues/monuments taken down. There could be something that we all do today and take for granted that will be looked at in horror in 200 years time... all history good and bad needs to be preserved, Colston did alot of good for the city of Bristol yes he was also involved in other not so good activities.. take Queen Victoria did lots of good for England you'd be hard pressed to find an English person who would criticise her too much, ask an Irish person and it's a totally different story, the famine queen ruled Ireland at a time when a million + people starved to death and she had the navy intercept aid destined for Ireland and the crown was actively taking what food was grown in Ireland to feed English people, would some Irish people taking a trip to England under an Irish lives matter banner to pull down statues of Victoria be given the same applause?

There are statues of English monarchs that really should be taken down from their current location - I mentioned it before, but the Richard I statue next to Parliament is perhaps the least appropriate bit of statuary in London, and I include that Michael Jackson thing that was outside Craven Cottage in that.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Statues come and go anyway and are largely erected or junked with history's prevailing whim.

Yer man in Bristol very probably paid for it himself. Part of the Empire's complex legacy is that much of several port cities best known architecture was paid for worh sweat and blood of people thousands of miles away who were exploited and abused.

I'm not sure throwing statues in the river is something I can get behind or not... has a strong tinge of the visigoths smashing up Roman temples (which again, I'm not sure how I feel about). But removing markers of a history we now find distasteful is also part of history.

Interesting times.

 

[Death]

They can mock away, I was wrong on 1 part of my argument that I've been called out on and fair enough, my point still stands you can't hold people from the past accountable for their actions using today's standards, if that were the case pretty much every British King or Queen should have their statues/monuments taken down. There could be something that we all do today and take for granted that will be looked at in horror in 200 years time... all history good and bad needs to be preserved, Colston did alot of good for the city of Bristol yes he was also involved in other not so good activities.. take Queen Victoria did lots of good for England you'd be hard pressed to find an English person who would criticise her too much, ask an Irish person and it's a totally different story, the famine queen ruled Ireland at a time when a million + people starved to death and she had the navy intercept aid destined for Ireland and the crown was actively taking what food was grown in Ireland to feed English people, would some Irish people taking a trip to England under an Irish lives matter banner to pull down statues of Victoria be given the same applause?

Tip I’m not going to argue with ye. Not going to say you’re right or wrong in your general argument. But ye gotta admit that statue post was objectively funny so just brush it off. Have a laugh yourself about it.

 

[Tipp blue]

Tip I’m not going to argue with ye. Not going to say you’re right or wrong in your general argument. But ye gotta admit that statue post was objectively funny so just brush it off. Have a laugh yourself about it.

I've admitted I got that wrong, I never have an issue with admitting when and where I messed up, but the fact that people took that little part and ran with it without addressing the main premise of my argument tells me all I need to know about their arguments.

 

[Death]

I've admitted I got that wrong, I never have an issue with admitting when and where I messed up, but the fact that people took that little part and ran with it without addressing the main premise of my argument tells me all I need to know about their arguments.

Again I hear we’re you wanna come
From but sometimes something that funny happens it just becomes about that. Agreeing with you or disagreeing that is just comedy. Not laughing at you as a person just it’s funny. Not exactly that you were wrong.

 

[the sniderman]

I've admitted I got that wrong, I never have an issue with admitting when and where I messed up, but the fact that people took that little part and ran with it without addressing the main premise of my argument tells me all I need to know about their arguments.

buddy i have had no less than 4 pms from people in this thread about u but they will confirm each time i will not say a bad word and encourage healthy debate. this whole thing in the usa will not be going anyway anytime soon.

 

[Tipp blue]

buddy i have had no less than 4 pms from people in this thread about u but they will confirm each time i will not say a bad word and encourage healthy debate. this whole thing in the usa will not be going anyway anytime soon.

So are they going to debate or just send pms to other users about me? If they don't like what I have to say they can ignore me, and I agree the issues in the USA is likely never going to go away.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I've admitted I got that wrong, I never have an issue with admitting when and where I messed up, but the fact that people took that little part and ran with it without addressing the main premise of my argument tells me all I need to know about their arguments.

What utter gash that is. It was you who brought up Muhammad as whataboutery, and then instead of just admitting you were wrong, you kept digging.

Your original post was just yet another embarrassing attempt to decry the tearing down of a statue of a slave trader, by putting forward a paper thin argument about others. Anyone who has an issue with that statue being binned, can get in one for me.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Statues come and go anyway and are largely erected or junked with history's prevailing whim.

Yer man in Bristol very probably paid for it himself. Part of the Empire's complex legacy is that much of several port cities best known architecture was paid for worh sweat and blood of people thousands of miles away who were exploited and abused.

I'm not sure throwing statues in the river is something I can get behind or not... has a strong tinge of the visigoths smashing up Roman temples (which again, I'm not sure how I feel about). But removing markers of a history we now find distasteful is also part of history.

Interesting times.

The mad part about that statue is that he died in 1719 and yet that statue wasn’t erected until 1895, go figure.

The blokes company had 19,000 slaves lobbed in the sea mate, and he branded his slaves on the chest with the company initials. That statue had no place in a U.K. major city in 2020.

 

[LinekersLegs]