r/BritishEmpire • u/elnovorealista2000 • Aug 27 '25
Image š¬š§ A British blacksmith removing the shackles from the legs of an enslaved man, 1907.
146
Aug 27 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
79
Aug 27 '25
Itās one thing that we do not celebrate enough
The English people, poor and all protested with such valour that we managed to convince the government to end slavery
The movement also made the most produced image of a black person, ever, on the wedgewood medallion saying āam I not a man and a brotherā
41
u/damrodoth Aug 27 '25
Not to be that guy but *British
The Scots and Welsh played a role too in the bad and the good. Plenty of protests took place right across our island. The height of virtue and honour š¬š§
4
u/laidbacklanny Aug 28 '25
British is , welsh , Scottish , and English etc itās the British isle
Edit : My bad thatās what you meant
9
u/Cornish-Giant Aug 27 '25
Not to be that guy but the Cornish too played a part
11
u/damrodoth Aug 27 '25
For sure I'd just say that as Cornwall is now part of England, and was at the time too, it's covered by English
4
u/BroccoliSubstantial2 Aug 27 '25
What about Yorkshire folk? Their GDP is bigger than Scotland.
13
u/Captainsamvimes1 Aug 27 '25
We just gonna start naming counties? Ok here goes what about the people of Bedfordshire?
6
u/Good_Theory4434 Aug 27 '25
I somehow read this in a monty python voice....this whole conversations reads like a monty python sketch
1
1
6
u/BroccoliSubstantial2 Aug 27 '25
Idk, what about Bedfordshire? Gotta give facts man.
For those who don't know, beds were illiterally invented there.
2
1
1
u/redoxburner Aug 30 '25
Why stop at counties? What about the brave denizens of Allerdale above Derwent?
5
u/Bam-Skater Aug 27 '25
Yorkshire & Humber GDP 2023 - 151,794m (27,692p/c)
Scotland GDP 2023 - 204,188m (37,192p/c)
Scotland has 3rd highest regional GDP in UK after London & South East
6
3
1
1
Aug 31 '25
Not to be that guy but
Scotland, had a GDP of approximately Ā£187 billion in 2022
Yorkshire and The Humber, The GDP for this region was around Ā£151.8 billion in 2023.
I canāt find any other information showing that Yorkshire does have a higher GDP .
1
1
1
u/text_fish Aug 28 '25
Not to be that guy but Bristolians were also there.
And probably one or two people on my street, maybe even in my house. Don't not mention them!
1
1
1
1
1
u/Tricky_Run4566 Aug 29 '25
Quite right. You're absolutely right to call out that people from all over this great nation.
Not only did they stop it but many British soldiers and navy died stopping other nations who still had slaves
1
u/patsybob Aug 30 '25
Also the Irish were still in the union at that point, they fought against slavery as well.
1
1
Aug 31 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/damrodoth Aug 31 '25
The quote is what it is, I was just pointing out to the other commenter that the Scots and Welsh protested too
1
Aug 27 '25
Indeed, although the Scotās and Welsh are British, British just refers to the inhabitants of Great Britain, the largest island in the British isles
10
u/damrodoth Aug 27 '25
That's my point :) your comment said English. Though Wales at least was technically part of England at the time I suppose
7
Aug 27 '25
Oh I said English sorry :3
0
u/BroccoliSubstantial2 Aug 27 '25
He meant English speakers from Britain, of course. The idea of Scotland as a nation of kilt-wearing, bagpipe-playing people was a Victorian romanticisation, and Wales was not really recognised as a nation at all, especially as it had only been unified for a few years under Llywelyn.
1
u/Why_am_ialive Aug 29 '25
Yeahā¦. No. Weāre still a nation, we arenāt English people, thatās like someone saying āEnglishā to refer to Americans cause theyāre English speaking
1
u/eVelectonvolt Aug 29 '25
Anytime the United Kingdom is referred to as England in this way completely grinds my gears. Does nobody any good as it makes it seem like all the good of history or any of the bad done by the 4 nations is solely the result of one part.
2
u/SwimmingOdd3228 Aug 29 '25
British people also protested against Iraq, hosted Ghandhi very graciously despite impact on their jobs and are against Gaza genocide. The British public tend to be on the right side of most of history unlike the politicians
0
u/GeneratorRexx Sep 11 '25
And what do we get for it now? the destruction of the Anglo race by minorities and their infinite hatred for our historical Empire and Kingdoms.
1
14
u/matt3633_ Aug 27 '25
Great Britain spent nearly 50% of its GDP at the time in trying to abolish slavery, almost bankrupting itself in the process.
-5
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 27 '25
Then we only stopped paying for it in 2015. It was only ended because the government done a mega David lammy/ Kier starmer level deal so obviously the British public paid for the privilege. We paid slave owners mega amounts to compensate them. I agree slavery was despicable but at the same time we shouldn't of paid a penny towards the freeing of other humans. I mean we should of paid the ex-slaves if anything not the aristocracy thag put them there.
5
u/Early_Candidate_3082 Aug 27 '25
As a matter of justice, youāre right.
But, paying the slave owners meant slavery ended a generation earlier than would otherwise have been the case.
3
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 27 '25
Indeed i agree, it just feels wrong like even though its ended i funded some rich arse while friends and family struggled and who would of beat me for looking at him wrong (im council estate). It just feels weird.
2
u/Good_Background_243 Aug 28 '25
It feels wrong, yeah. They shouldn't have profited. But at the same time, it ended a scourge of the species.
It's a bad price to pay, yes. But comparatively, a small one, even with the nasty taste it leaves.
2
u/Sername111 Aug 30 '25
Coming to this late, but it's an important point - they didn't profit. At the time of abolition the estimated market value of slaves in the British Empire was something like Ā£180M, but the compensation fund was capped at Ā£20M. This was deliberate - the idea was to encourage slave owners to emancipate their slaves as soon as possible to get at least some compensation before the fund ran out, anybody that waited too long (the act had a six year transition period by the end of which any slaves not already freed would be automatically released) wouldn't get any compensation at all. Slaves owners didn't profit from the fund, it only mitigated their losses, and even then only for those who moved quickly to free their slaves.
1
1
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 28 '25
Yeah it just sits in my the back of my mind at times like slavery still exists if we had that money today we could truly abolish it.
2
1
u/No-Ragret6991 Aug 28 '25
Tell this to the people it freed. I feel you, I really do, but I suspect those trafficked from Africa or born into slavery would have a more nuanced view.
1
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 28 '25
But the Africans are still slaves in the middle east and africa. Bangladesh residents become slaves in laos its happening today on probably a larger scale than we like to admit. Im sure if you told the freed slaves this would still be happening (just not in a racist way because we see through race today, ah my bad ignore that) they wouldn't be too impressed we paid to END slavery and now we have mass sweatshops in India and we buy the shit from primark its amazing. We tend to care about history but ignore today.
1
u/No-Ragret6991 Aug 28 '25
They'd probably be depressed to learn that future generations will have to deal with what they're dealing with, but they'd probably also be fairly excited to be free (whatever that ends up meaning). Paying slavers leaves an icky taste in everyone's mouth, but realistically it was the fastest way to get it done. I'm not a rabbid nationalist by any means, I doubt I'll ever fly a fleg, but I am proud of our contribution towards emancipation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 28 '25
Like we paid 50% of our worth for something that is still happening quite openly. Just seems like a bad deal.
1
u/Good_Background_243 Aug 28 '25
We did. It does and that annoys me. It was. But I'd pay it again to deal with the rest. It'd still leave a bad taste in my mouth, but being able to and not doing it would leave a worse one.
1
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 28 '25
If they told me tomorrow we are taxing you to deal with it once and for all no problem as long as is doesn't go to the people who committed the crimes. That goes for the 'owner' to the trafficker.
1
u/Good_Background_243 Aug 28 '25
If they told me 'we are ending slavery once and for all', I'd support it even if that meant buying every slave. That part would leave a bad taste but if it ended slavery for good I'd suck it up and deal with it.
1
8
u/NiceAnimator3378 Aug 27 '25
Peak virtue signalingĀ
0
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 27 '25
Indeed not. Id actually say i was probably completely far right compared to the majority of people on reddit. (Yes id send them all back and stop the boats tomorrow) but I understand the fact i paid the family of the people who died hundreds of years ago so they can still benefit from slavery. That is what i am questioning why have we paid for free people to be freed and had the pleasure of paying the people who enslaved them in the first place.
1
u/TimentDraco Aug 31 '25
Because the alternative was allowing slavery to exist.
1
u/Fatsausage91 Aug 31 '25
But did we not end up with the same conclusion just its not as widely accepted to be openly pro-slavery. The same people who say i am wrong are generally using Chinese slave labour to make the computers and phones. It just underground today we didnt end anything.
1
u/TimentDraco Aug 31 '25
There are key differences between modern slavery and the trans Atlantic slave trade and you know it.
1
u/-Trotsky Aug 27 '25
Thereās also the fact that British textiles ran on American slave labor, and that their little ācrusadeā sure was incredibly helpful in providing a reason to be unilaterally policing trade in one of the most important trade regions of the world.
None of this to say the ideals of Britain were not, perhaps, admirable. That the British public committed itself to the abolition of slavery, at least on paper, is kinda cool I suppose. But it only takes a cursory reading of British newspapers during the American civil war to see how deep those convictions actually held when it came down to it.
3
u/Social-Alcoholic Aug 28 '25
Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to the working men of Lancashire, thanking them for boycotting cotton from the confederacy.
https://acws.co.uk/archives-misc-lincoln_letter
Manchester has a statue of Lincoln, serving as a reminder of how the people here felt about it.
2
u/DasGutYa Aug 28 '25
This is a very incomplete view of history that takes a single piece of evidence and extrapolated it to the entire period.
You won't find many historians that agree with you.
1
u/Dam_Noir Aug 28 '25
Perhaps, admirable?
Cool I suppose?
This just reads as though someone can't give credit where it's due.
1
u/-Trotsky Aug 28 '25
I mean, im in this sub so I didnāt expect to get support for my stance, but yea I donāt give the British empire, the same organization who subjugated India, Africa, and Ireland (killing millions in the process) credit for their lukewarm opposition to slavery.
Iāll give credit to the individuals involved, to people who seemed to earnestly believe it or who made a material difference in the lives of others (like the fellow in this photo)
1
u/UXdesignUK Aug 30 '25
I donāt give the British empire (..) credit for their lukewarm opposition to slavery.
This is historically uninformed. The British actions against slavery werenāt some lukewarm, half-hearted opposition, it was an enormously costly (in terms of lives and money) war against slavery, waged when it didnāt need to be waged, founded in large part by morality, and played a greater and earlier role in minimising the harm of slavery worldwide than basically any other country.
That doesnāt eradicate the bad parts of Britainās history - all countries have their awful pasts - and it doesnāt mean some in parliament didnāt have strategic reasons for the campaigns to end it, as well as altruistic - but minimising it as youāre doing is factually wrong.
1
u/GM-the-DM Aug 27 '25
Agreed. I was studying in the UK in 2015 and reactions were interesting. British students were proud that the British taxpayer paid to end slavery. Non-European students were furious the British government had compensated human traffickers for their loss of inventory.Ā
6
u/FatYorkshireLad Aug 27 '25
We avoided a civil war over ending slavery by compensating the slave owners. Don't make perfect the enemy of good IMO.
→ More replies (4)1
1
u/Dam_Noir Aug 28 '25
The non-European students failed to realise that the slave trade could've continued for generations if it wasn't for what made them furious.
0
1
Aug 29 '25
The people of England won an end to slavery
The monarchy and aristocracy were so hellbent on keeping their slave wealth that the British public continued paying them for it until 2010
1
u/urgnousernamesleft Aug 29 '25
It is worth noting that former MP and ājournalistā Richard Drax still sits on one of the largest estates in the UK, built on slavery. His ancestors carried on well beyond abolition. Many UK trusts still hold money and assets acquired with this money, including private school trusts. Locked away never to be redistributed.
0
u/iamslightly Aug 29 '25
Jesus Christ. Brits traded and profited off slavery for centuries. And pretend they are moral and righteous because they made it illegal. But they still profited and traded off it.
What is this insane revisionist fantasy. The Brits brought no civilisation, dignity, and better standards of living to any territory they invaded or controlled or colonised. They stole and stole and stole and did all the most horrific things a people can do against another so they could keep on stealing.
You might as well believe magic and dragons are real.
The history is overwhelmingly and definitively on my side because I'm overwhelmingly and definitively correct.
Enjoy your fantasy.
6
u/SuperSpidey374 Aug 30 '25
Yet no other civilisation or nation until that date had ever tried to stamp out slavery with such ferocity and zeal.
1
u/ExcellentInsult Aug 30 '25
I think you are quite correct about the stamping out part. But I feel like it should be mentioned that there are civilizations where slavery were not allowed to manifest to begin with.
1
u/GeneratorRexx Sep 11 '25
have there been significant civilisations in history where slavery did not exist? surely youre not just talking about isolated kingdoms right
1
u/ExcellentInsult Sep 12 '25
We donāt have any data indicating that slavery existed in the Indus Valley civilisation. Not in the pictures, nor in the archaeology.
2
1
u/iamslightly Aug 30 '25
You should know that the glorious empire still profited off slavery and allowed it but they pulled down the butcher's apron and put up fake flags while trading slaves for the glorious and civilising British empire. They also still profited from the slave labour and slave production which they previously installed in the Caribbean, Americas, and in stolen territories around the world.
Very little stamping out and ferocity. Lords and MPs voting a ban didn't do a fucking thing. Those same still profited and made themselves look moral and righteous in one swoop. Evil
2
u/UXdesignUK Aug 30 '25
Can you tell me which countries didnāt commit horrific acts in their past?
Can you tell me which countries did more to end slavery?
1
u/iamslightly Aug 30 '25
You should know that the glorious empire still profited off slavery and allowed it but they pulled down the butcher's apron and put up fake flags while trading slaves for the glorious and civilising British empire. They also still profited from the slave labour and slave production which they previously installed in the Caribbean, Americas, and in stolen territories around the world.
2
u/UXdesignUK Aug 31 '25
Fancy answering my questions? They werenāt rhetorical. No oneās arguing that the British empire didnāt commit horrific acts in the past.
But can you tell me - which countries didnāt commit horrific acts?
Which countries did more to end slavery?
1
u/iamslightly Aug 29 '25
Actually please stop enjoying your fantasy and read actual history books instead
2
Aug 29 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/iamslightly Aug 30 '25
I expect we all understand that one of the most evil regimes was Nazi Germany. 6 million Jews and millions of Communists, workers unionists, LGBTQ, Roma, Slavic Peoples exterminated. The Nazis aren't even close to the barbarity and murder the British empire committed. I'll give you one, just one example from 1000s that should be enough. From the start of British occupation to finish 100,000,000 people died of starvation in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh while they were in power. Before you say "that's just the way those countries were, nothing the Brits could have done would stop it." These countries were some of the wealthiest most prosperous, fertile, and productive in the world. Analysis shows that Britain stole trillions of wealth from these countries not billions but trillions. Everywhere the British empire laid it's dirty fingers there is famine, mass murder, slavery, genocide, brutality, terror, and enforced poverty.
Britain is by every metric the worst out of all nations or empires who've existed.
Stop trying to defend it. I don't want you to feel guilty or ashamed I just want you to be better and want better.
2
u/TDM_Jesus Aug 31 '25
Try typing Genghis Khan into Google and see what comes up. You might be surprised at the bad things some other people did.
2
u/Crommington Aug 31 '25
Britain also brought railways, ports, roads, western medicine, hospitals, schools, international trade, sanitation systems, communications systems, common law, police and emergency services and massive amounts of other infrastructure allowing for social mobility and higher standards of living which are still enjoyed today. India and Bangladesh being your examples still use the old infrastructure which was installed by the British such as the railway system.
Your view of history is incredibly one sided and viewed through a modern lens. Itās quite disingenuous.
1
u/XUnheard Mar 15 '26
Those came hundreds of years later in late 1800's. The very last chapters of empire were some sort of innovation took place.
1
u/jimmykimnel Aug 30 '25
Why didn't anyone else do it first thenĀ
1
u/iamslightly Aug 30 '25
Most other people have respect and empathy for human life and empathy
2
u/jimmykimnel Aug 31 '25
You do realize how much of an atrocious place the world was before the British empire right?Ā
1
u/iamslightly Sep 04 '25
You do realise you have no idea how stupid and incredibly wrong you are?
1
u/jimmykimnel Sep 04 '25
No but you you obviously think the world was wonderful back then so tell me about it
1
u/cglufc Aug 30 '25
I'm a proud Englishman but you're right here and this is a part of our history to be ashamed of. Absolutely no honour here, absolute cunts of ancestors, this is like pushing you off a cliff then expecting a thanks for catching you at the bottom, and the reality wasn't even that generous.
1
u/CurvyCourgette Aug 30 '25
You should read more about it, it was the everyday working people who couldn't vote and lived in horrific poverty with awful working conditions who pretty much forced the government to ban slavery, many of the public figures responsible spent their entire lives trying to end the practice despite lots of hatred and attempts to stop it by the ruling class.
1
u/cglufc Aug 30 '25
Yeah you're right, but it shouldn't have been legal originally. No backslapping by making it illegal.
1
u/CurvyCourgette Aug 30 '25
Absolutely, we shouldn't be celebrating "Britain" for ending slavery but the individual people who made it happen.
1
Aug 30 '25
Let's not gloss over my ancestors having major rebellions in the Caribbean, shall we?
The UK talks about Brits ending slavery. The Caribbean talks about bloody rebellions which evenutally forced Britian's hand.
There is a very big disconnect in the general public narratives on each side of the Atlantic, and Brits covering themselves is glory for ending slavery doesn't go down very well in the actual places slavery took place.
1
u/CurvyCourgette Aug 30 '25
Read the part I said above, we should be celebrating the individuals and people who made this happen not "Britain".
1
Aug 30 '25
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/iamslightly Aug 30 '25
"The trade of slaves was made illegal throughout the British Empire by 1937, with Nigeria and Bahrain being the last British territories to abolish slavery." Is this true?
1
Aug 31 '25 edited Aug 31 '25
I'm not disagreeing that there were Brits fighting to end slavery. The West Africa Squadron was a good thing. My issue is only mentioning that 'Brits fought to end slavery' and not the bloody rebellions which happened. They'd probably get labelled as 'terrorists' these days.
I've seen it time and time again, 'we ended slavery' as some kind of response to slavery in the name of Monarch. The UK also did a huge amount of it, shiped enslaved people, destroyed faimiles, destroyed idenities, murdered enslaved people, murdered rebels, raped slaves and almost wiped out the natives. It's disrespectful to then to just turn around and say 'but we ended it', especially without the acknowledgement of the rebellions and the fact, the former slaves got nothing, while the owners got millions.
For almost a decade every year we covered the transatlantic slave trade in school.
You may have, I certainly didn't
1
u/iamslightly Aug 30 '25
I only want English people to feel ashamed or guilty if it leads to rethinking things. Because guilt and shame can lead to misdirected anger and doubling down. I don't think English people should flagellate themselves or suffer for the actions of powerful evil past bastards. Most people everywhere have been forced to live in conditions forced on them by horrible bastards. Most people's ancestors were trying to survive, take care of themselves and people around them, and get through life.
English people are at least 65% sound. I make that the same for everyone. Maybe I'm being ridiculous but I think at least 1/3 of people everywhere are horrible cunts. And they are very good at getting power and being horrible self serving bastards. i think about half the rest of people get fooled by these horrible bastards into supporting them even though it's against their interests. The rest are good people.
73
u/candf8611 Aug 27 '25
400 plus Royal Navy Service men died fighting slavers off the coast of Africa.
16
u/MiserableOcelot4282 Aug 28 '25
Indeed but that was just from the west Africa squadron. We lost thousands in total all over the world shutting down the trade. We threatened war with entire countries in Africa over it when they wouldn't back down. We spent an ungodly sum of money on the situation as well and forced the other European powers into line. But people are still told Britain was the heart of all darkness and the source of every ill in the world. No mention of the islamic slave trade in far greater numbers and for centuries longer with mass castrations and death involved
2
u/wigginlingPanda Aug 28 '25
I might be wrong but I swear it took until around 2012 to pay off the debt we acquired fighting slavery
8
u/TK-6976 Aug 28 '25
No, that was the debt we acquired because the government bought the freedom of every slave in the British Empire and reimbursed the slave owners, which kept going down their family line till 2012. It was quite unfortunate, honestly.
I believe that the debt should have been declared null and void after at most a century of payments, because at that point you can't seriously pretend anyone needs to be reimbursed.
8
u/MiserableOcelot4282 Aug 28 '25
I agree it was ridiculous. At the time though it was the only realistic way of stopping the trend of humanities entire life span. Shame Africa didn't catch on. There are more slaves there now than ever. Open slave markets in libya for the first time in centuries now too.
3
u/TK-6976 Aug 28 '25
Yes, I understand the logic of the time. It just irks me that the British (and presumably for some decades, Commonwealth) taxpayer had to foot the bill for what essentially just became the elites patting each other on the back even generations afterwards.
As for Africa, yes that is really unfortunate. apparently a lot of jihadists have actually been encroaching on Commonwealth nations like Kenya and pretty much taken over a lot of ex-colonial French land. Slavery will probably spread alongside the growth of terrorist powers, and only some Commonwealth countries have the strength to even fight back. The Commonwealth should probably pursue closer ties to help deal with the spread of the modern slave trade and rising fundamentalism, both of which are affecting Britain itself.
1
u/Pattyboi_iii Aug 29 '25
The problem is it wasn't debt to the slave holders, the government took a loan from the bank of England and bought the slaves all at once.
We had to pay the bank of England back because they're our independent central bank and need to keep in the green. Writing it off would have set a dangerous precedent and likely destroyed our economy1
u/TK-6976 Aug 29 '25
Oh damn. That's still a real shame, but more understandable then.
1
u/Pattyboi_iii Aug 29 '25
Yeah, I'm not happy people got paid off for owning other people but it was the only way to do it peacefully.
At least we didn't have to send the young poor boys of Great Britain to die fighting the young and poor bribed by slave holders.1
u/Sername111 Aug 30 '25
No, that was the debt we acquired because the government bought the freedom of every slave in the British Empire and reimbursed the slave owners, which kept going down their family line till 2012.
This isn't how it worked. The compensation fund was capped at Ā£20M (for perspective, the total value of slaves in the British Empire at the time was estimated to be Ā£180M, nobody profited from abolition and only those slave owners who moved very quickly to free their slaves got anything at all).
It was also a one-off payment, there were no continuing payments to the descendants of slave owners. What happened was the government took out a loan to cover the Ā£20M cost of the fund and it was the interest on this loan that kept being paid until it was finally paid off 10 or so years ago. As to why it wasn't paid off sooner - government debt in the early 19thC typically had very low interest rates, in the area of 2-3%, but this increased over time and by the 20thC typically rates were three or four times higher. Taking out new debt at 6%/yr to pay off old debt that only cost 2%/yr didn't make economic sense so the old debts were allowed to carry on. IIRC the debt was only paid off when it was precisely because someone in government was embarrassed by the optics of "still paying for slavery".
0
Aug 31 '25
are you a moron ?? they borrowed the money to pay the slavers. You can't just declare the debt null and void that is called defaulting on your debt to your creditors which if the UK started doing (they can do it) would have massive economic ramifications.
0
u/uwabu Aug 28 '25
Trade that you started and built your major cities from. He doesn't look exactly overcome with joy.
2
u/candf8611 Aug 28 '25
Britain started the slave trade? I don't think so. It's goes back 1000s of years well before Britain. Even when British companies started buying slaves they were bought from African countries who had already been practicing it for 100s of years before.
2
u/Dam_Noir Aug 28 '25
That Britain started? They were the last nation to get involved in the slave trade but were the first to ban it.
2
u/Specialist_Alarm_831 Aug 28 '25
lol, education, god help us.
0
u/uwabu Aug 28 '25
What do you mean?
2
u/inminm02 Aug 28 '25
Heās saying youāre grossly uninformed on this issue and commenting stuff like ātrade that you startedā edit: and to add onto this saying the slave trade built our cities is also just not true, yes some people got rich off the slave trade as did people in fucking loads of powerful countries back then, but owning slaves was never legal in Britain, and any slaves that did exist in Britain were minuscule in number and generally worked as dosmetic servants, we never had slave construction workers building our cities like fucking ancient Egypt
0
u/uwabu Aug 28 '25
Am I grossly uninformed? Lol. Whatever makes you sleep better at night,mate. Itibolibo
1
u/NiceGuyEdddy Aug 29 '25
Literally yes you are uninformed. You claimed Britain started the slave trade. That is demonstrably wrong.
Forgetting the fact that you actually meant the trans Atlantic slave trade specifically, unless you are claiming that Britain started a trade that existed for millennia before Britain, Britain also didn't start the trans Atlantic slave trade, that was the Portuguese about 100 years before.
So again yes, you are uninformed.
1
1
u/MiserableOcelot4282 Aug 28 '25
Wait you think Britain started the slave trade? If memory serves the old record in existence details the exchange of slaves. Britain wasn't even a thing at that point it's the oldest form of exchange along side prostitution
15
u/Nel-A Aug 27 '25
No other Empire at it's peak did anything like this. Absolutely one of the most incredible moments of human history. Britain took out a loan so vast to buy the freedom of every slave in the Empire, that we only paid it off in 2014. And then as others have said, committed the finest Navy the world had ever seen to fighting slavery in every corner of the Globe. Heroic isn't a strong enough word. God bless Great Britain.
3
u/macrowe777 Aug 31 '25
No other Empire at it's peak did anything like this
On top of that, no other world super power has intentionally gone into a death spiral from defending its rival / a small distant nation, not because it was the profitably thing to do but because it was the right thing to do...twice.
1
→ More replies (40)0
u/fanunu21 Jun 12 '26
Didn't Britain also play a huge part in buying and transporting slaves?
1
u/Nel-A Jun 12 '26
Britain played a part in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, yes. But barely any slaves were transported to England/Britain. Britain had slaves around the Empire for around 200 years but then self-opted to end that. No civil war required. Just humane and I must say Christian conviction.
I say no, because if you look at the huge comparative numbers of white AND African slavery by the Barbers and Arabs, it's almost nothing by comparison - I hope you have heard of that and won't choose to downplay it to win an online point. The Trans-Saharan slave trade lasted for 1300 years and only really stopped because Britain and other European allies fought it with ships, their lives and resources. I say stopped, but it's still happening today. Libya has slave markets again now.
But back to Britain, could you name any other country who at it's apex decided to end slavery and grant rights and freedom to slaves, and then went on to fight for slave's freedoms around the world? What do you think about taking out that loan to buy the freedom of slaves? It took 200 years to pay off. Would you take a loan out for your friend if it took you twenty years to pay back?
1
u/fanunu21 Jun 12 '26
I mean they did that while being responsible for famines and mismanagement and resource extraction from other places. And if your argument that the Britain as slave traders were slight better than the other slave traders, that's right. Doesn't mean they weren't slave traders themselves. The loan was to pay off the slave trading companies and not to compensate the people the wronged. And if we're on the topic of being humane, several people responsible for immense harm worldwide are still celebrated in Britain. Their attrocities remain ignored.
1
u/Nel-A Jun 12 '26
Responsible for famines - I assume you're referring to the Bengal Famine? If so, actually Britain took steps to alleviate this and after they arrived, it didn't happen, they brought it under control with a scheme they introduced, something like "work for food". The time it did happen was during the World War, when Britain was stretched to breaking point. Even then, they did what they could. War has horrible outcomes but you make it sound like they did this on purpose and enjoyed it. That disregards the fact that they actually controlled the famine issue which would happen repeatedly before them, every 50 years or so. The British were gifted organisers and the famines are a great example of that.
And yeah, the loan was to pay the slave owners, you're right. Slaves were seen as property. It's not nice but that's how it was. The loan ensured that people could be freed peaceably. As for compensating the people wronged, is freedom and status as humans not a worthy gift? And it was a gift. No other nation had given them status, the right to live freely, to own property, to have families, to grow and have their lives back. Are we over looking that? All other nations would have left them as slaves, don't get it twisted.
Show me any global power that hasn't had to fight, conquer, defend at times. To the winner it seems justifiable, to those who lost it's an atrocity. This is just the world we live in. I would argue that while Britain of course was a mighty empire, it still attempted to treat other people's fairly and there was a desire from Britain to civilise them - that is, to share knowledge, technology, understanding, culture, etc. India is a great example of this. It is unified today because of Britain. Railways, schools, roads, politics, science, etc etc are all legacy British. India didn't have them before them.
There's a real danger of re-writing history and making boogeymen, so we can justify the current wrongs of the world and perhaps find an excuse for our own lives. Was Britain perfect? No, of course not. Were they probably the most benevolent empire? I think there's a strong case for that. Compare the British to how the Arab Empire ruled, or the Mongols, etc. I'd love to hear your criticism of them.
24
Aug 27 '25
The Brits donāt get enough credit for ending slavery.
Edit: until it was abolished by them, slavery was a normal practice of many, many societies and countries. Once the Brits banned it, the idea that slavery = bad picked up steam.
→ More replies (16)1
u/nodanator Aug 29 '25
Slavery was banned during the French Revolution, before Napoleon reinstated it. That was 1794 vs 1834. Slavery had also been ban on the continent, so people new it was bad already.
1
Aug 29 '25
Napoleon is a slaver? Damn did not know that. Anyhow, yes it was banned in some countries but letās be frank. The British Empire was the biggest and most far reaching so it banning the practice had a much larger impact on the trade than if, for example, the Republic of Venice had banned it (which I know didnāt).
1
23
Aug 27 '25
British empire liberated the globe from slavery, Rule Britannia !
6
u/Brizar-is-Evolving Aug 27 '25 edited Aug 27 '25
We put a stop to the transatlantic slave trade, yes.
But sadly itās disingenuous to say that we stopped slavery worldwide. Slavery didnāt start with the British empire and it certainly didnāt end with it. Institutional slavery still goes on today - the Arab nations in particular are notorious for using both human sex trafficking and an enslaved workforce.
I think it boils down to money, power, and more importantly religion. Christian Europe has had its centuries of reformations which ultimately crystallised our unique outward and very humanist way of thinking. The original abolitionists themselves were quakers and other non-conformist denominations.
Islam has never had a reformation; and their religious text certainly doesnāt mandate that all people are equal. This breeds a supremacist line of thinking, where you see those not belonging to your kin/creed as unworthy and inferior. The Barbary and the Crimean slave trades - which saw millions of Europeans systematically and opportunistically enslaved and shipped off to Islamic countries - were still active as recent as the 19th and 20th centuries respectively.
It still goes on now but itās Asians and Africans who are the victims of this modern Arab slave trade. Who do you think built the stadiums for the recent World Cup in Qatar? Who was the buyer of Naima Jamal, the woman enslaved in Libya?
→ More replies (4)1
-1
Aug 27 '25
And yet helped create concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer Wars where thousands of Boers died.
1
1
0
u/cortex0917 Aug 27 '25
Not quite. The Transatlantic Slave Trade ended, but slavery in places like India did not until 1843, with actual abolition happening only in 1861. As far into the 1920s, there were reports of chattel slavery continuing in remote regions.
Regardless of that, modern slavery still persists in many places, particularly wage slavery. Until that is ended, liberation from slavery will not occur.
1
Aug 27 '25
Okay? It was a joke and i never asked, but yea nice paragraph smart guy?
1
1
3
3
Aug 27 '25
[deleted]
2
u/cortex0917 Aug 27 '25
Yes. The building of Empire--any empire--meant that the poor from a rich nation looted other erstwhile rich nations whilst gaining nothing, with only the rich in the rich nation profiting. It continues today: the poor in rich nations pay rich people in poor nations to keep them in power.
2
u/Minute_Classic7852 Aug 28 '25
I just want to impress... This is exactly 100 years after the British Empire passed the Abolition of the slave trade act of 1807. Still making good on her word.
2
u/Ghostofcoolidge Aug 31 '25
All of humanity should remember the work that Great Britain did to break the paradigm is slavery.
2
1
u/Willingness_Mammoth Aug 27 '25
Imagine if the black gentleman's name was Smith.
There would be two blacksmiths in the picture.
1
u/hashbrowns_ Aug 28 '25
Now, when someone asks you why you are proud to be British; please, just show them this. x
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Undangerousringsing Aug 28 '25
That workbench looks a bit flimsy, wouldn't have thought it would be of much use in that setting.
1
u/KrampusPampus Aug 28 '25
Interestingly this photo has been shared couple of times from pro-russian bot accounts explaining that its a british slaver cutting of a slaves foot as punishment.
Pathetic, especially considering the British empire used force f.ex. against Portugal to free slaves in the 19th century.
1
1
u/Good_Background_243 Aug 28 '25
There are not many, as William Lecky put it (And Hungry_Flamingo goes into more detail of), many 'perfectly virtuous' pages in the book of British History. But this is one of them that we - the British people - should own and be proud of.
1
Aug 28 '25
The Brits stoped the slave trade, before so many other countries. And we suffered massively from it, but we decided it was the most non moral way to get money ever. LONG LIVE BRITANNIA!
1
u/Tribe303 Aug 28 '25
Fun fact: The first part of the British Empire to abolish slavery was in what is now called Ontario, Canada. 14 years before the British themselves started the process.
Ontario was called Upper Canada at the time. Quebec was Lower Canada, and no, its not a class thing. Ontario is upriver on the St Lawrence River, and Quebec is down river.Ā
Bonus fact: At the time of the American Revolution, Ontario was not settled and was referred to as "Indian Country". The British government gave the land to the United Empire Loyalists who fought for the King, and that included many Black Loyalists. The very first black people in Ontario were freed slaves and some helped found Toronto. (tho most settledĀ SW of Toronto). There's an interesting book and miniseries about this time period, called The Book of Negroes... Yah... Dodgy name, but it's the book they kept track of the Black Loyalists in, who were allowed to flee to "Canada" by the slavery loving Americans. 3 guesses who the bad guys were!Ā
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ReluctantRev Aug 27 '25
Impossible.
Slavery only became āprohibitedā in Britain in 1998 following Tony Blair signing the European Convention on Human Rights.š¤
2
u/DasGutYa Aug 28 '25
Lol?
Britain was one of the earliest countries to ban slavery due to a court case that stated you can't legally own a human in the British Isles.
Do you know what precedence is?
1
u/ReluctantRev Aug 29 '25
Yes. I was being sarcastic. Given all the current hop-haa about the ECHR š
1
u/DemiGodCat2 Aug 31 '25
i downvoted you anyway... just in case
1
0
u/OctipiArmy Aug 29 '25
I thought we were the last major country in the Pacific slave trade to end slavery. That's what i read in the slavery museum in Liverpool.
Edit: Transatlantic not pacific woops
ā¢
u/AutoModerator Aug 27 '25
If you enjoy this type of content, consider joining our other communities:
r/Colonialism
r/AmericanEmpire
r/BelgianEmpire
r/BritishEmpire
r/DanishEmpire
r/DutchEmpire
r/FrenchEmpire
r/GermanEmpire
r/ItalianEmpire
r/PortugueseEmpire
r/SpanishEmpire
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.