|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 21, 2021 9:39:19 GMT
Because the suggestion by these groups is that money payments are made in reparation for the slavery that ended 200 years ago. Not to all people, only to people who don't have white skins. So we can see that colour is important, to these groups. Does this make these people racist, or dog whistlers perhaps? That suggestion being made by "those groups" shows a complete and total ignorance of history.
England was the first country to produce anti slavery laws largely due to the pressure from Archbishop Lanfranc (the moral advisor to the King) with a result that the first law was passed placing limitations upon slavery within the realm. Within 50 years slavery had almost disappeared from England ...... When was this ? the 12th century !!!
International slave trade was a harder matter to do anything about, even if there could be a law about it, it would have been pointless there was no way enforcement was possible.
Even so in the early 19th centuary Britain banned International slave trading by any nation. Slavery was banned anywhere in the British Empire and Slaves were freed ( In effect Britain compensated their owners running up an huge loan (about 5% of GDP) finally paid back by Gordon Brown in 2015) It wasn't freedom immediately but three stages Under 5's immediately then re-classification as apprentices for a set period (with some renumeration) then freedom over a period of 4 to 6 years
Originally there was only a token force sent by the Royal Navy to enforce the ban on international trade .... just 1 ship .... however it is worth remembering that at this time Britain was fighting
in effect a world war.
After that war the Naval fleet was vastly increased. The Royal Navy waged a war against the Atlantic Slave trade that cost a total of 5,000 lives, an average of 2% of GDP every year for 60 years. That on top of the huge compensation package loan. In that period Britain released over 150,000 slaves from captured vessels
Even after the West African anti slavery patrol ended The Royal Navy then continued and still does anti slavery actions in the Indian Ocean
I think the point being made by these groups is that the financial benefits of actions more than 200 yeas ago led to 'established wealth' which is still held today. Therefore, those with white skins should pay higher taxes, today and in the future, in order that those with black skins may receive handouts, in order to even things up. The counter argument, one I tend to subscribe to is that slavery ended 200 years, or many generations ago. Since then a black person, should he or she get a job, or be a skilled entrepreneur will be paid for their efforts, just like a white person will. If a group of people is impoverished through lifestyle choices, perhaps by having large families within relationships that aren't stable, an unhealthy lifestyle leading to obesity or choosing an illegal activity that pays well rather than making the effort required to secure an honest well paid living...the generally better off white majority ought to educate and advise rather than support poor lifestyle choices through handouts, handouts that perpetuate the poor choices leading to negative outcomes both for the impoverished group, and wider society.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 21, 2021 9:49:53 GMT
Anyway back to Labour's daft idea: Anyone foolish enough to put their money into a government 'recovery bond' will see said government instigate (further) inflationary measures. So, if the value of the (artificially inflated) economy doubled, the government liability to its bond holders would effectively decrease by 50%. Plenty of money to give government workers pay rises, create new benefits whilst stealing half of the money entrusted to them in good faith, money that has already been taxed. From a Labour perspective, what's not to like?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 9:51:32 GMT
That suggestion being made by "those groups" shows a complete and total ignorance of history.
England was the first country to produce anti slavery laws largely due to the pressure from Archbishop Lanfranc (the moral advisor to the King) with a result that the first law was passed placing limitations upon slavery within the realm. Within 50 years slavery had almost disappeared from England ...... When was this ? the 12th century !!!
International slave trade was a harder matter to do anything about, even if there could be a law about it, it would have been pointless there was no way enforcement was possible.
Even so in the early 19th centuary Britain banned International slave trading by any nation. Slavery was banned anywhere in the British Empire and Slaves were freed ( In effect Britain compensated their owners running up an huge loan (about 5% of GDP) finally paid back by Gordon Brown in 2015) It wasn't freedom immediately but three stages Under 5's immediately then re-classification as apprentices for a set period (with some renumeration) then freedom over a period of 4 to 6 years
Originally there was only a token force sent by the Royal Navy to enforce the ban on international trade .... just 1 ship .... however it is worth remembering that at this time Britain was fighting
in effect a world war.
After that war the Naval fleet was vastly increased. The Royal Navy waged a war against the Atlantic Slave trade that cost a total of 5,000 lives, an average of 2% of GDP every year for 60 years. That on top of the huge compensation package loan. In that period Britain released over 150,000 slaves from captured vessels
Even after the West African anti slavery patrol ended The Royal Navy then continued and still does anti slavery actions in the Indian Ocean
the generally better off white majority ought to educate and advise How very 'white man's burden' of you. Incidentally, drug-dealing, unemployment and obesity are hardly the exclusive domain of black people.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 21, 2021 10:02:10 GMT
the generally better off white majority ought to educate and advise How very 'white man's burden' of you. Incidentally, drug-dealing, unemployment and obesity are hardly the exclusive domain of black people. Indeed, in exactly the same way that not only white people are wealthy. If one tendency is put forward as a good reason for change, other tendencies ought to carry equal weight within the argument.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Feb 21, 2021 10:13:22 GMT
Starmer had a reality check ITV did interviews with ex labour voters and played it to him, I suspect he know knows that labour have more than a mountain to climb to get voted in again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 10:57:19 GMT
How very 'white man's burden' of you. Incidentally, drug-dealing, unemployment and obesity are hardly the exclusive domain of black people. Indeed, in exactly the same way that not only white people are wealthy. If one tendency is put forward as a good reason for change, other tendencies ought to carry equal weight within the argument.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Feb 21, 2021 11:33:45 GMT
I'd also like to point out to NotRacist of Barmouth that reparations were made at the ending of slavery - to the owners, not the slaves.
I watched a beautifully produced docu-drama film "Belle" the other day. Thoroughly recommended.
The story centred around a true case brought before the attorney-general in the 18th century where the insurance company had been sued by a ship owner because they wouldn't pay out for the loss of a cargo of slaves.
The case was based on the ship master's claim that he was becalmed off the coast of South America and fresh water was running low, so in order to have enough water for the crew, all the slaves were thrown overboard still in their manacles.
The ship's log proved that the ship actually made steady progress just off the coast and had the opportunity to put into 8 different ports where water could have been found. It appeared that either the slaves were all sick and couldn't be sold at a profit, or the master couldn't be arsed to complete the journey and was relying on the insurance payout.
The court found the insurance company was right and a seed was sown to bring about the end of the slave trade.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 21, 2021 12:54:16 GMT
Because the suggestion by these groups is that money payments are made in reparation for the slavery that ended 200 years ago. Not to all people, only to people who don't have white skins. So we can see that colour is important, to these groups. Does this make these people racist, or dog whistlers perhaps? I'd also like to point out to NotRacist of Barmouth that reparations were made at the ending of slavery - to the owners, not the slaves. It was a way of achieving their freedom in the only way possible at the time.
It Involved a change in Parliament (the reform act) as up till then efforts to abolish slave ownership outside of the UK was hamstrung by the rotten boroughs.
I read a very good American analysis of how much it can cost a nation when it put it's moral principles over materialism and it used Britain's fight against slavery as the most notable case of this.
I don't believe it is available free to view, I think you have to pay for a download ...... if I can find the details I will post them
The whole thing makes interesting reading and it should be remembered there was little interest from anywhere else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 14:04:49 GMT
I'd also like to point out to NotRacist of Barmouth that reparations were made at the ending of slavery - to the owners, not the slaves.
I watched a beautifully produced docu-drama film "Belle" the other day. Thoroughly recommended.
The story centred around a true case brought before the attorney-general in the 18th century where the insurance company had been sued by a ship owner because they wouldn't pay out for the loss of a cargo of slaves.
The case was based on the ship master's claim that he was becalmed off the coast of South America and fresh water was running low, so in order to have enough water for the crew, all the slaves were thrown overboard still in their manacles.
The ship's log proved that the ship actually made steady progress just off the coast and had the opportunity to put into 8 different ports where water could have been found. It appeared that either the slaves were all sick and couldn't be sold at a profit, or the master couldn't be arsed to complete the journey and was relying on the insurance payout.
The court found the insurance company was right and a seed was sown to bring about the end of the slave trade.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 16:29:22 GMT
I'd also like to point out to NotRacist of Barmouth that reparations were made at the ending of slavery - to the owners, not the slaves. It was a way of achieving their freedom in the only way possible at the time.
It Involved a change in Parliament (the reform act) as up till then efforts to abolish slave ownership outside of the UK was hamstrung by the rotten boroughs.
I read a very good American analysis of how much it can cost a nation when it put it's moral principles over materialism and it used Britain's fight against slavery as the most notable case of this.
I don't believe it is available free to view, I think you have to pay for a download ...... if I can find the details I will post them
The whole thing makes interesting reading and it should be remembered there was little interest from anywhere else.
I understand that slavery was an issue bandied about in the American war of Independence, but that it was little more than a hook to hang a coat on. Whichever way you look at it, it seems undeniable that the wealth generated through slavery was instrumental in the construction of the British Empire - another mercantile venture not noted for its humanitarian effort.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 21, 2021 20:47:01 GMT
It was a way of achieving their freedom in the only way possible at the time.
It Involved a change in Parliament (the reform act) as up till then efforts to abolish slave ownership outside of the UK was hamstrung by the rotten boroughs.
I read a very good American analysis of how much it can cost a nation when it put it's moral principles over materialism and it used Britain's fight against slavery as the most notable case of this.
I don't believe it is available free to view, I think you have to pay for a download ...... if I can find the details I will post them
The whole thing makes interesting reading and it should be remembered there was little interest from anywhere else.
I understand that slavery was an issue bandied about in the American war of Independence, but that it was little more than a hook to hang a coat on. Whichever way you look at it, it seems undeniable that the wealth generated through slavery was instrumental in the construction of the British Empire - another mercantile venture not noted for its humanitarian effort. I think you are greatly exagerating it's effect on the expansion of the British Empire. Lucrative though the trade was for many individuals, the areas where slaves were traded were only a small proportion of the Empire. Attributing blame to anybody for the actions of people from history is ludicrous.
To penalise companies, who had investors 200 years ago who obtained their money from slavery is wrong, nobody should be held to blame now, for crimes of hundreds of years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 21:04:11 GMT
I understand that slavery was an issue bandied about in the American war of Independence, but that it was little more than a hook to hang a coat on. Whichever way you look at it, it seems undeniable that the wealth generated through slavery was instrumental in the construction of the British Empire - another mercantile venture not noted for its humanitarian effort. I think you are greatly exagerating it's effect on the expansion of the British Empire. Lucrative though the trade was for many individuals, the areas where slaves were traded were only a small proportion of the Empire.
No, not really. The profits gained from the colonies fuelled the expansion of the navy who protected British interests who in turn made more money. Its just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 21, 2021 21:32:14 GMT
I think you are greatly exagerating it's effect on the expansion of the British Empire. Lucrative though the trade was for many individuals, the areas where slaves were traded were only a small proportion of the Empire.
No, not really. The profits gained from the colonies fuelled the expansion of the navy who protected British interests who in turn made more money. Its just a fact.
Well there is no ignoring that slave trading was a major European occupation for hundreds of years, a little known factor in the attacks by Drake and Raleigh on Spanish and Portugese properties were an attempt to break into that lucrative trade ...... they were unsuccessful and the Spanish and Portugese held onto their dominance for a bit longer.
(an odd fact, when the first British plantations started using chattel slavery istead of indentured labour, due to the lack of British slavers they had to purchase the slaves from Dutch slavers and the eventual muscling in of British ships into this trade was a source of eventual conflict with the Dutch)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 21:41:20 GMT
No, not really. The profits gained from the colonies fuelled the expansion of the navy who protected British interests who in turn made more money. Its just a fact.
the eventual muscling in of British ships into this trade was a source of eventual conflict with the Dutch)
What didn't? Oh and which nation eventually operated the largest and most sophisticated slaving enterprise? Let me see... Yes, its true Britain by no means had a monopoly of the practice.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Feb 21, 2021 22:13:14 GMT
the eventual muscling in of British ships into this trade was a source of eventual conflict with the Dutch)
What didn't? Oh and which nation eventually operated the largest and most sophisticated slaving enterprise? Let me see... Yes, its true Britain by no means had a monopoly of the practice. I don't think there's any doubt that Britain profited richly from the slave trade. So, would you like to pay more tax today so people with black skin, or perhaps also mixed colour skin, can receive regular government payments in compensation for the injustice that was dished out 8 or 9 generations ago?
|
|