The Lemon Fool

I don't think the article adds to the debate about reparations, all it seems to say is that it took 5 years longer for the Spanish slavers to be stopped than historians previously thought. An interesting footnote for historians, and a tragedy for anyone taken as slaves during those 5 years no doubt. Five years to totally eradicate a crime isn't such a bad statistic when put into the context of all the other violent crime which seems so difficult to stop. We still hear about modern slavery today which is taking far longer to tackle, and at an estimated 40 million current slaves dwarfs the approx 13 million taken over the entire 400 years of the transatlantic slave trade. Not that there's any sort of moral competition. But isn't there something a little odd about the fixation on one particular variant of slavery for moral outrage when it's just one element of a much bigger picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... st_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

Looking at the map of 21st C slavery, it is still most prevalent in Africa and the Middle East. Shouldn't other peoples be feeling guilt for this, not just Whites?

MuddyBoots wrote:But isn't there something a little odd about the fixation on one particular variant of slavery for moral outrage when it's just one element of a much bigger picture.

The reparations folks are less about moral outrage and more about financial opportunism.

And the irony is that such greed is coming from those descended from slaves who, as a result, are now far wealthier than the descendants of those Africans who were "lucky" enough to not have been enslaved.

I would rather give money to genuinely poor Africans than these latter day hustlers.

Lootman wrote:

MuddyBoots wrote:But isn't there something a little odd about the fixation on one particular variant of slavery for moral outrage when it's just one element of a much bigger picture.

The reparations folks are less about moral outrage and more about financial opportunism.

And the irony is that such greed is coming from those descended from slaves who, as a result, are now far wealthier than the descendants of those Africans who were "lucky" enough to not have been enslaved.

I would rather give money to genuinely poor Africans than these latter day hustlers.

Read about the history of Liberia, and learn from it.

MuddyBoots wrote:I don't think the article adds to the debate about reparations, all it seems to say is that it took 5 years longer for the Spanish slavers to be stopped than historians previously thought. An interesting footnote for historians, and a tragedy for anyone taken as slaves during those 5 years no doubt.

Slavery was introduced for Scottish colliers and salters by an act of the Scottish Parliament in 1606, and was extended to associated workers in further acts during that century. In 1774 an act was passed to end such practices, but loopholes allowed it to continue until a further act in 1799, which finally ended this (native Scottish) slavery. As far as I am aware there were no reparations.
The slave trade in the British Empire was abolished in 1807, but all slaves in the colonies were not freed until 1838 - with the slave owners being paid compensation.

scotia wrote:

MuddyBoots wrote:I don't think the article adds to the debate about reparations, all it seems to say is that it took 5 years longer for the Spanish slavers to be stopped than historians previously thought. An interesting footnote for historians, and a tragedy for anyone taken as slaves during those 5 years no doubt.

Slavery was introduced for Scottish colliers and salters by an act of the Scottish Parliament in 1606, and was extended to associated workers in further acts during that century. In 1774 an act was passed to end such practices, but loopholes allowed it to continue until a further act in 1799, which finally ended this (native Scottish) slavery. As far as I am aware there were no reparations.
The slave trade in the British Empire was abolished in 1807, but all slaves in the colonies were not freed until 1838 - with the slave owners being paid compensation.

Thanks scotia that Scottish slavery's a new one to me. And clearly there's nuances in the historical details because trading in slaves is different to owning them.

I knew about the compensation for slave owners though, I have a vague recollection that it was a pragmatic necessity to get the legislation passed through a parliament dominated by aristocrats and property owning gentry. Who were more likely to be involved in the slave trade anyway. We didn't have universal suffrage in those days unfortunately: another reason not to pass the blame down through the generations.

MuddyBoots wrote:

scotia wrote:Slavery was introduced for Scottish colliers and salters by an act of the Scottish Parliament in 1606, and was extended to associated workers in further acts during that century. In 1774 an act was passed to end such practices, but loopholes allowed it to continue until a further act in 1799, which finally ended this (native Scottish) slavery. As far as I am aware there were no reparations.
The slave trade in the British Empire was abolished in 1807, but all slaves in the colonies were not freed until 1838 - with the slave owners being paid compensation.

Thanks scotia that Scottish slavery's a new one to me. And clearly there's nuances in the historical details because trading in slaves is different to owning them.

I knew about the compensation for slave owners though, I have a vague recollection that it was a pragmatic necessity to get the legislation passed through a parliament dominated by aristocrats and property owning gentry. Who were more likely to be involved in the slave trade anyway. We didn't have universal suffrage in those days unfortunately: another reason not to pass the blame down through the generations.

Governments typically have to compensate citizens when that government confiscates their property, as in compulsory purchase orders and cases of eminent domain.

And like it or not, back then slaves were business assets that had been legally traded and employed. So compensation to former slave owners was a legal and political imperative. Same happened in the US where plantation owners were compensated for their loss. The slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule, although that ended up never happening.

MuddyBoots wrote:I knew about the compensation for slave owners though, I have a vague recollection that it was a pragmatic necessity to get the legislation passed through a parliament dominated by aristocrats and property owning gentry. Who were more likely to be involved in the slave trade anyway. We didn't have universal suffrage in those days unfortunately: another reason not to pass the blame down through the generations.

For a number of years I aided with a group of visually disabled persons. As well as help with their visual problems we arranged speakers on numerous diverse topics. One was given by Geoff Palmer (Professor Sir Geoff Palmer) - who was of Jamaican parentage, and he told how the slave owners compensation was used to build a number of fine houses in Edinburgh. He wrote a book "The Enlightenment Abolished - Citizens of Britishness" which is available from Amazon. I must admit that I had not been aware of the compensation to the slave owners, and the wealth it provided to Edinburgh.
-

scotia wrote:

MuddyBoots wrote:I knew about the compensation for slave owners though, I have a vague recollection that it was a pragmatic necessity to get the legislation passed through a parliament dominated by aristocrats and property owning gentry. Who were more likely to be involved in the slave trade anyway. We didn't have universal suffrage in those days unfortunately: another reason not to pass the blame down through the generations.

For a number of years I aided with a group of visually disabled persons. As well as help with their visual problems we arranged speakers on numerous diverse topics. One was given by Geoff Palmer (Professor Sir Geoff Palmer) - who was of Jamaican parentage, and he told how the slave owners compensation was used to build a number of fine houses in Edinburgh. He wrote a book "The Enlightenment Abolished - Citizens of Britishness" which is available from Amazon. I must admit that I had not been aware of the compensation to the slave owners, and the wealth it provided to Edinburgh.
-

The BBC Correspondent Laura Trevelyan was interviewed last year on a podcast about actions she and her relatives have decided to take on discovering the compensation her family received at the time
I can't remember which of the, hardline centrist, podcasts I listen to it was, but she spoke really well about how the fact of this had been erased from the family history and it was uncovered during, what would be now routine, ancestry searches.

Growing up where i did the importance of sugar & tobacco was often raised when local history was discussed in school - why else would there be Jamaica St, Otago St, St Vincent St etc? (and those are just named for the places - ignoring the panoply of streets named for "owners & merchants" around Glasgow)
- the darker side of this trading (and wealth generation) was conveniently glossed over

I think, if nothing else, it's better to learn from history (or at least acknowledge it) lest we suffer the well understood perils

scotia wrote:

MuddyBoots wrote:I knew about the compensation for slave owners though, I have a vague recollection that it was a pragmatic necessity to get the legislation passed through a parliament dominated by aristocrats and property owning gentry. Who were more likely to be involved in the slave trade anyway. We didn't have universal suffrage in those days unfortunately: another reason not to pass the blame down through the generations.

For a number of years I aided with a group of visually disabled persons. As well as help with their visual problems we arranged speakers on numerous diverse topics. One was given by Geoff Palmer (Professor Sir Geoff Palmer) - who was of Jamaican parentage, and he told how the slave owners compensation was used to build a number of fine houses in Edinburgh. He wrote a book "The Enlightenment Abolished - Citizens of Britishness" which is available from Amazon. I must admit that I had not been aware of the compensation to the slave owners, and the wealth it provided to Edinburgh.

Any UK city with a large number of grand Georgian houses probably profited either from slavery or from the compensation paid to slave owners and traders. Not just Edinburgh but Liverpool, Bristol, Bath, London and probably others. In fact I owned a rather grand Georgian house myself for 12 years.

But so what? Most of those houses have changed hands multiple times, and will have been remodelled multiple times. There is quite simply no way to unravel the alleged "profit" from slavery from all the subsequent value creation.

So if some people want to clutch their pearls and feel shame because centuries ago a distant ancestor of theirs engaged in a business that was perfectly legal and ethical by the standards of that time, then let them wallow in their self-imposed guilt. But realistically nothing can be done about it now, nor should it.

My grandparents were dirt poor so I am highly confident that I have derived no benefit from any of this anyway. But I am not going to make the mistake of judging the actions of one era from the moral standpoint of another very different era. This latter date guilt fest is not helpful.

Lootman wrote: This latter date guilt fest is not helpful.

I do find the whole thing unhelpful. It's just whipping people up into a rather strange frenzy to no good. One cannot unwind the past, and nor should we even attempt to - except perhaps for the most easily solved problems such as Nazi stolen artworks.

As to the previously mentioned wealth in Georgian houses - we have all benefitted from this trade - including the descendants of the slaves who were fortunate enough to survive - directly or indirectly.

I don't intend to lose any sleep over it, and it's a pathetic sideline in history that institutions are having to recant or change their names or pay compensation due to this fashion. One cannot and should not undo an omelette - especially one we are all still eating.

Arb.

Lootman wrote:Any UK city with a large number of grand Georgian houses probably profited either from slavery or from the compensation paid to slave owners and traders. Not just Edinburgh but Liverpool, Bristol, Bath, London and probably others. In fact I owned a rather grand Georgian house myself for 12 years.

Indeed -I only singled out Edinburgh, since it was the nearest city to our meetings, and I was surprised to learn of the number of (local) grand houses that had been funded from the government compensation to slave owners.
Following the Union of Parliaments in 1707, Scotland gained access to the lucrative slave trade, and they became particularly involved in the slave-based sugar trade with Jamaican plantations. A substantial number of Scots went to manage the plantations, and I believe that the surname Campbell is common on the island.

scotia wrote:

Lootman wrote:Any UK city with a large number of grand Georgian houses probably profited either from slavery or from the compensation paid to slave owners and traders. Not just Edinburgh but Liverpool, Bristol, Bath, London and probably others. In fact I owned a rather grand Georgian house myself for 12 years.

Indeed -I only singled out Edinburgh, since it was the nearest city to our meetings, and I was surprised to learn of the number of (local) grand houses that had been funded from the government compensation to slave owners.
Following the Union of Parliaments in 1707, Scotland gained access to the lucrative slave trade, and they became particularly involved in the slave-based sugar trade with Jamaican plantations. A substantial number of Scots went to manage the plantations, and I believe that the surname Campbell is common on the island.

The fact that staggered me regarding this a while back was the the loan taken out to compensate the slave owners wasn't paid off until 2015. So while everyone here was still on TMF part of our taxes was being used to this end.
Ancient history indeed

servodude wrote:

scotia wrote:Indeed -I only singled out Edinburgh, since it was the nearest city to our meetings, and I was surprised to learn of the number of (local) grand houses that had been funded from the government compensation to slave owners.
Following the Union of Parliaments in 1707, Scotland gained access to the lucrative slave trade, and they became particularly involved in the slave-based sugar trade with Jamaican plantations. A substantial number of Scots went to manage the plantations, and I believe that the surname Campbell is common on the island.

The fact that staggered me regarding this a while back was the the loan taken out to compensate the slave owners wasn't paid off until 2015. So while everyone here was still on TMF part of our taxes was being used to this end.
Ancient history indeed

Yeah but those gilts were the long ago mash up of converted and several times consolidated long term undated debts that also included loans for the South Sea bubble collapse (1720), the Napoleonic and Crimean wars, and the Irish potato famine distress relief loan of 1847. None of the 2015 holders bought those gilts to support compensating slave owners, indeed, I suspect most (who were small time individual investors it seems) had no idea of what was rolled up into those gilts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/uk-first-world-war-bonds-redeemed

mc2fool wrote:

servodude wrote:The fact that staggered me regarding this a while back was the the loan taken out to compensate the slave owners wasn't paid off until 2015. So while everyone here was still on TMF part of our taxes was being used to this end.
Ancient history indeed

Yeah but those gilts were the long ago mash up of converted and several times consolidated long term undated debts that also included loans for the South Sea bubble collapse (1720), the Napoleonic and Crimean wars, and the Irish potato famine distress relief loan of 1847. None of the 2015 holders bought those gilts to support compensating slave owners, indeed, I suspect most (who were small time individual investors it seems) had no idea of what was rolled up into those gilts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/uk-first-world-war-bonds-redeemed

Indeed.
But the way it was presented round the time by the treasury leant a bit heavier in to it (in a strangely jocular and oblivious way)
From a cache at: https://news.cgtn.com/news/77457a4d35677a6333566d54/img/115a85ea-3b9a-47eb-ad68-ce3c6a103e2c.jpg

servodude wrote:

mc2fool wrote:Yeah but those gilts were the long ago mash up of converted and several times consolidated long term undated debts that also included loans for the South Sea bubble collapse (1720), the Napoleonic and Crimean wars, and the Irish potato famine distress relief loan of 1847. None of the 2015 holders bought those gilts to support compensating slave owners, indeed, I suspect most (who were small time individual investors it seems) had no idea of what was rolled up into those gilts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/uk-first-world-war-bonds-redeemed

Indeed.
But the way it was presented round the time by the treasury leant a bit heavier in to it (in a strangely jocular and oblivious way)
From a cache at: https://news.cgtn.com/news/77457a4d35677a6333566d54/img/115a85ea-3b9a-47eb-ad68-ce3c6a103e2c.jpg

I must have missed that at the time. A very strange way of looking at it! I wonder which spin doctor came up with that idea.

MuddyBoots wrote:We didn't have universal suffrage in those days unfortunately: another reason not to pass the blame down through the generations.

Usual story. The benefit and the glory must be passed down through the generations, but definitely not the blame. No siree.


GS

mc2fool wrote:Yeah but those gilts were the long ago mash up of converted and several times consolidated long term undated debts that also included loans for the South Sea bubble collapse (1720), the Napoleonic and Crimean wars, and the Irish potato famine distress relief loan of 1847. None of the 2015 holders bought those gilts to support compensating slave owners, indeed, I suspect most (who were small time individual investors it seems) had no idea of what was rolled up into those gilts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/uk-first-world-war-bonds-redeemed

George Osborne, the chancellor, said: “The fact that we will no longer have to pay the high rate of interest on these gilts means that, most important of all, today’s decision represents great value for money for the taxpayer. We will go on working through our plan that is gripping the public finances and delivering a brighter economic future.

Oh yeah?

GoSeigen wrote:

MuddyBoots wrote:We didn't have universal suffrage in those days unfortunately: another reason not to pass the blame down through the generations.

Usual story. The benefit and the glory must be passed down through the generations, but definitely not the blame. No siree.

GS

Blame? I see where you are coming from but that would suggest a direct causality that I can can't really agree with.

I believe we have a responsibility to acknowledge and understand what happened - and what resulted from it
- to accept that the position and power achieved by some nations during the time was down to two hundred years of the unpaid labour of millions of people... and that we have benefitted from that, from the legacy it left and the transfer of wealth that it caused
- and that there exists still a huge disparity of outcomes and existances because of how some people's ancestors treated others
- but we are not to blame for what happened

we will be to blame for what happens with how we deal with it though

servodude wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:
Usual story. The benefit and the glory must be passed down through the generations, but definitely not the blame. No siree.

GS

Blame? I see where you are coming from but that would suggest a direct causality that I can can't really agree with.

I believe we have a responsibility to acknowledge and understand what happened - and what resulted from it
- to accept that the position and power achieved by some nations during the time was down to two hundred years of the unpaid labour of millions of people... and that we have benefitted from that, from the legacy it left and the transfer of wealth that it caused
- and that there exists still a huge disparity of outcomes and existances because of how some people's ancestors treated others
- but we are not to blame for what happened

we will be to blame for what happens with how we deal with it though

Blame. It wasn't my word -- but as you defend the concept of not accepting blame do you agree with @MuddyBoots's implication that if there were universal suffrage at that time then blame would be appropriate? It seemed to me just the latest of a long list of excuses not to accept any responsibility at all (whereas the many proofs of white supremacy deriving from similar periods seem to be accepted).
GS

I’ve been listening to a podcast about the Ottomans. Interesting. We simply do not learn about this through history in school. They (Ottomans) ran slaving parties into Cornwall and even London in 13/14th century. Estimated that something like 25% of population of North African countries were european slaves at that time.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2WabOv6uxGMBr3dyrhJaKr