When Britain abolished it's slave trade about half a dozen African kingdoms complained! King Gezo of the Dahomey was on record saying he'd do anything the British asked but give up slavery. Britain signed about 50 anti slaving treatise with West African kingdoms and any that refused to stop got bombarded into stopping. The slave port of Lagos, Nigeria was one such location bombarded to stop slaving in 1851. Lagos renamed it's independence square after a local slave trader. You can see a statue of her there today. When the transatlantic slave trade had largely stopped, they diverted ships to East Africa to stop the Arab slave trade. They stopped patrolling East Africa in the 1970's. Look up the photos from the HMS Sphinx that captured Arab slavers in Oman and the sailors breaking off the chains of the African slaves in 1907?
Mansa Musa - we crack on about how rich he was but forget he made that money by conquering and enslaving his neighbours. He brought over 10,000 slaves with him on his hajj to Mecca - over a century before the Portuguese arrived to take their first "curiosity". You don't drag 10k slaves across Africa and ruin the economy of Egypt by your gift giving of gold - if there isn't a well established and lucrative slave trade already existing in Africa long before the Europeans arrived. .
What you have to understand is that Africans didn't consider themselves to be "Africans", they were Aja, Yoruba, Mahi, etc... To a Yoruba, the Aha and Mahi weren't his brothers, they were targets for conquest. "Black" and "White" are American classifications. Africans and Europeans cared and to a great extent still care far more about what tribe or nation people are from than what colour they are.
Lord Mansfield could have just said that slavery was immoral- instead he said "You can't possibly be a slave, the luxury of the air of England enriches and elevates us above that." Wow. And there's something very British about giving the order "Quick, surround Africa!" to a fleet of just 2 ships 😄
Theres still SLAVERY going on all around the WORLD more in the MIDDLE EAST,INDIA,PAKISTAN than anywhere else even in even small occasions in AMERICA,BRITAN (SEX SLAVES,INDENTURED SLAVES,HUMAN TRAFFICKING Etc etc) But 2,000 ROYAL NAVY PERSONNEL died defending SLAVERY do there families get REPARATIONS as well???
6 месяцев назад+1
even to modern times the debt incurred for this anti-slavery stance was paided up until 2015.
There is a book written by an African American women that tells how her great grandfather was a famous slave trader. with some nice editing to make it seem nice. Her article is at the NY times "My Great-Grandfather, the Nigerian Slave-Trader By Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani"
Abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire cost the country a vast amount of money - a loan that was not finally paid off unitl 2015. It cost a great many Royal Navy lives, some in battle with slavers but mostly to tropical diseases. Countless lives were lost or destroyed in that crusade - in battle with slavers but mostly to tropical disease. Growing up in Kenya the Arab slave trade left deep scars in East Africa - but it was not until I was much older I found out why Swahili contained so many Arabic words!
I'm sorry, but it has to be said: with a subject as important as this you need to listen to every word. Talking over the video causes both you and your viewers to miss parts of it. You interrupted the video at an extremely important moment at 12:00 and the whole flow of the thing was lost. You almost missed what was being said at that time, which was laying out the basis for the rest of the video. It isn't noted in the video, but not all slaves were black. As the Romans were active in north Africa some of the "one third of Italy" may have been. But that was before the empire, so it wouldn't have been many. The "10% of the English population" that were slaves were entirely white. If the question occurred to you, "how could Britain demand that other nations outlaw slavery and expect them to comply?" Well, at the time Britain and the British Empire were the only superpower around. They were the equivalent of today's US, Russia, and China all in one. The Royal Navy was made powerful enough to easily defeat the next two largest navies in the world at the same time. Who was going to stand against that? .
It's not about 'brothers taking brothers'. Europeans were taking other Europeans for centuries, even millennia. I don't consider Pascquel in Bourdoux a 'brother'. Even though his race is extremely similar to my own. Africa is a vast continent, far larger than Europe, with more and larger countries. I can certainly see why there's an urge to continue that 'us and them' mentality pertaining basically to blacks and whites. Just don't see the benefits nowadays.🤷♂ It is strange though, whites have NEVER seen themselves as brothers or kin or anything like that! Neither have Middle Easterners or indeed Asians/East Asians.🤷♀
The Medieval Latin words for “Slav” and “slave” are not etymologically related. Further on, the Medieval Latin word for “slave”, and with it, its root as well, predate the first sightings and contact of mainland European civilization with the Slavs. Evolution of the name of Slavs "Sloveni/ Slaveni" comes from PIE *klew (to hear) evolving into proto-Slavic *slovo/ *slava (word/ fame), finally evolving into Sloveni/ Slaveni (those glorious/ those who understand eachother). Meanwhile, the English word for "slave" comes from the Latin word "clavis/ clavus" (a key/ nail), which bore the Latin word "inclavare" (to lock in), ultimately giving rise to the word "sclavus" (slave - "a locked one"), which probably entered the English language, along with a major portion of Romance words, with the Norman invasion. Further on, the cognate with Sloveni/Slaveni, is the word Sclavinii/ Slabini, a Latin denotes for Slavic ethnic group. From a purely historical perspective, Greece and Gaul were Rome’s main reservoir of slaves for centuries, while the Irish were the main reservoir of slaves for their Normano-English oppressors for more than half a millennium, and before them, to Norsemen as well. Dublin was the biggest slave market in Western Europe. Its main sources of supply were the Irish hinterland, Wales and Scotland, while in the Far and the Middle East, the Turkmen tribes would supply the largest portion of Eurasia with innumerable slaves for nearly a millennium. Aside from that, just during the earliest stage of the Slavic invasion of Roman territory south of the Danube (6th century), a quarter of a million Roman citizens were enslaved by the Sclavenes (early South Slavs) in just modern-day Bulgaria, the number of their slaves kept growing as more and more provinces and their capitals fell to the aforementioned Slavs. Granted the Slavs didn't enslave their enemies permanently, but they've enslaved them nonetheless, and in record numbers that are substantially greater than the number of Slavs who were enslaved by non-Slavs during the entirety of the Middle Ages, and it renders the aforementioned non-Slavs as being more fitting to have their ethnonyms made “synonymous” with slavery
I understand why "we were forced by the British to stop using slaves" isn't taught in schools around the world. But it feels kinda gross that many. And I mean alot of people aware of history let slavery slide past them to England. You tell me how educators in the US didn't pick up on the uninformed opinions of their students? I don't buy it. I think I've just found the first conspiracy theory I actually believe. And it's gross.
Slavery wasn’t allowed in England since 1066 but outside it was, so there was a lot of Amazon and apple type companies of the day. Very much how it is today. Something that I think you’d find interesting is the Somerset case of 1776 ( an American came to England with a slave called James Somerset ) when it was established in law that the moment a slave foot on English soil, he is free
Straight after the so call crusade against slavery, Britain started a new type of slavery- indentured labour, which is when the British tricked Indians ( while they were colonizing india) who were desperate for work, they signed a document promising them work in countries like Guyana , fiji and Mauritius, where they worked on sugar plantations, but it was not work, they were slaves, the British would call them coolies. Indentured labour is a not very talked about topic.
This is simply incorrect, indentured servitude has existed for over a thousand years. The first recorded examples were in India in the 4th century bc. Whilst some unscrupulous employers forced workers to sign unfavourable contracts, the vast majority of indentured servitude was for the reasons of debts owed, or apprenticeships, where an employee agreed to work for a fixed term, receiving wages, and often accomodation and food, in exchange for their labour, for a fixed amount of time, usually 5 or 10 years. You may have valid reasons to hate the British, but this is not one of them. Instead of listening to ignorant people on twitter/x perhaps you should read a book instead, there are many renowned authors from history, who wrote first hand experiences of slavery, indentured servitude, etc.
@wolfen210959 are you a white British ? ( or Anglo Saxon to be precise) if so, you're logic is predictable, defending the British thieving, inhumane empire to the end. I actually don't go on Twitter, I talk to Indians who had first hand experience in this area 😏.
You are writing bullshit. No people were tricked, the British Government in India went to great lengths to make sure no one was tricked. There were Parliamentary enquiries on this false claim back in the days.
When Britain abolished it's slave trade about half a dozen African kingdoms complained! King Gezo of the Dahomey was on record saying he'd do anything the British asked but give up slavery.
Britain signed about 50 anti slaving treatise with West African kingdoms and any that refused to stop got bombarded into stopping. The slave port of Lagos, Nigeria was one such location bombarded to stop slaving in 1851. Lagos renamed it's independence square after a local slave trader. You can see a statue of her there today.
When the transatlantic slave trade had largely stopped, they diverted ships to East Africa to stop the Arab slave trade. They stopped patrolling East Africa in the 1970's.
Look up the photos from the HMS Sphinx that captured Arab slavers in Oman and the sailors breaking off the chains of the African slaves in 1907?
The British stopped because they weren't making money anymore not because of moral reasons
REAL history is a proper eye openers isn't it?
They don't want to teach this in SCHOOLS they just teach WOKE LIBERAL MADE UP 💩
13:10 In case anyone isn't sure, that 10% of the population who were slaves were also white, probably also English, otherwise Scots/Welsh/Irish.
good information
So just couldn’t listen to this and take it as truth. Soooo I went digging and everything he said that I could find is true.. who knew!
Every culture lasting many centuries has good things and bad things in their history
True, but as good things though, we, arguably, had the best!? :D
Mansa Musa - we crack on about how rich he was but forget he made that money by conquering and enslaving his neighbours. He brought over 10,000 slaves with him on his hajj to Mecca - over a century before the Portuguese arrived to take their first "curiosity". You don't drag 10k slaves across Africa and ruin the economy of Egypt by your gift giving of gold - if there isn't a well established and lucrative slave trade already existing in Africa long before the Europeans arrived. .
What you have to understand is that Africans didn't consider themselves to be "Africans", they were Aja, Yoruba, Mahi, etc... To a Yoruba, the Aha and Mahi weren't his brothers, they were targets for conquest. "Black" and "White" are American classifications. Africans and Europeans cared and to a great extent still care far more about what tribe or nation people are from than what colour they are.
Please have a look at RAW Hidden Truth Behind The End Of Slavery - Thomas Sowell | British War on Slavery .Thank you young lady.
How smart do I have to be to realize how stupid i am?
Pretty clever actually. Socrates - lauded as the wisest man in ancient Athens - once said "The only thing I know is that I know nothing".
@@Anti_Woke Alas! Socrates wasn't dumb enough This 'quote' looks vary cleaver, but is a paradox! It would have ruined his career.
I'm sure this is common knowledge in the African-American Studies faculties in American Universities ..NOT.
They don't teach this in SCHOOLS they teach WOKE HATŔED
Lord Mansfield could have just said that slavery was immoral- instead he said "You can't possibly be a slave, the luxury of the air of England enriches and elevates us above that."
Wow.
And there's something very British about giving the order "Quick, surround Africa!" to a fleet of just 2 ships 😄
And the reason for it being only two ships being "at war with France" is even more English
We rulled the world, flipped it, then gave it back.
Theres still SLAVERY going on all around the WORLD more in the MIDDLE EAST,INDIA,PAKISTAN than anywhere else even in even small occasions in AMERICA,BRITAN (SEX SLAVES,INDENTURED SLAVES,HUMAN TRAFFICKING Etc etc) But 2,000 ROYAL NAVY PERSONNEL died defending SLAVERY do there families get REPARATIONS as well???
even to modern times the debt incurred for this anti-slavery stance was paided up until 2015.
There is a book written by an African American women that tells how her great grandfather was a famous slave trader. with some nice editing to make it seem nice. Her article is at the NY times "My Great-Grandfather, the Nigerian Slave-Trader By Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani"
Note: her great grandfather was slaving in the 1950's, I believe.
A lot of countries didn't outlaw slavery into the the'1960s. This whole 'pointing fingers' game is ridiculous. @@josm1481
There is still a a "shrine" to him in Nigeria. @@josm1481
Abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire cost the country a vast amount of money - a loan that was not finally paid off unitl 2015. It cost a great many Royal Navy lives, some in battle with slavers but mostly to tropical diseases. Countless lives were lost or destroyed in that crusade - in battle with slavers but mostly to tropical disease. Growing up in Kenya the Arab slave trade left deep scars in East Africa - but it was not until I was much older I found out why Swahili contained so many Arabic words!
The empire stopped because they weren't making enough money from it nothing about morality
It never ended your brothers are still doing it
And British tax payers were still paying it off in 2015.
The money was paid to the slave owners the slaves got nothing
And we only finished paying for this in 2014/15
I'm sorry, but it has to be said: with a subject as important as this you need to listen to every word. Talking over the video causes both you and your viewers to miss parts of it. You interrupted the video at an extremely important moment at 12:00 and the whole flow of the thing was lost. You almost missed what was being said at that time, which was laying out the basis for the rest of the video.
It isn't noted in the video, but not all slaves were black. As the Romans were active in north Africa some of the "one third of Italy" may have been. But that was before the empire, so it wouldn't have been many. The "10% of the English population" that were slaves were entirely white.
If the question occurred to you, "how could Britain demand that other nations outlaw slavery and expect them to comply?" Well, at the time Britain and the British Empire were the only superpower around. They were the equivalent of today's US, Russia, and China all in one. The Royal Navy was made powerful enough to easily defeat the next two largest navies in the world at the same time. Who was going to stand against that?
.
❤❤❤❤❤👍
It's not about 'brothers taking brothers'. Europeans were taking other Europeans for centuries, even millennia. I don't consider Pascquel in Bourdoux a 'brother'. Even though his race is extremely similar to my own.
Africa is a vast continent, far larger than Europe, with more and larger countries. I can certainly see why there's an urge to continue that 'us and them' mentality pertaining basically to blacks and whites. Just don't see the benefits nowadays.🤷♂
It is strange though, whites have NEVER seen themselves as brothers or kin or anything like that! Neither have Middle Easterners or indeed Asians/East Asians.🤷♀
I'm white in the uk ,,,my brothers and kin are my fellow football fans ✌✌✌🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
ha fucking ha,,,,
Good old Brazil...
The Medieval Latin words for “Slav” and “slave” are not etymologically related. Further on, the Medieval Latin word for “slave”, and with it, its root as well, predate the first sightings and contact of mainland European civilization with the Slavs. Evolution of the name of Slavs "Sloveni/ Slaveni" comes from PIE *klew (to hear) evolving into proto-Slavic *slovo/ *slava (word/ fame), finally evolving into Sloveni/ Slaveni (those glorious/ those who understand eachother). Meanwhile, the English word for "slave" comes from the Latin word "clavis/ clavus" (a key/ nail), which bore the Latin word "inclavare" (to lock in), ultimately giving rise to the word "sclavus" (slave - "a locked one"), which probably entered the English language, along with a major portion of Romance words, with the Norman invasion. Further on, the cognate with Sloveni/Slaveni, is the word Sclavinii/ Slabini, a Latin denotes for Slavic ethnic group. From a purely historical perspective, Greece and Gaul were Rome’s main reservoir of slaves for centuries, while the Irish were the main reservoir of slaves for their Normano-English oppressors for more than half a millennium, and before them, to Norsemen as well. Dublin was the biggest slave market in Western Europe. Its main sources of supply were the Irish hinterland, Wales and Scotland, while in the Far and the Middle East, the Turkmen tribes would supply the largest portion of Eurasia with innumerable slaves for nearly a millennium. Aside from that, just during the earliest stage of the Slavic invasion of Roman territory south of the Danube (6th century), a quarter of a million Roman citizens were enslaved by the Sclavenes (early South Slavs) in just modern-day Bulgaria, the number of their slaves kept growing as more and more provinces and their capitals fell to the aforementioned Slavs. Granted the Slavs didn't enslave their enemies permanently, but they've enslaved them nonetheless, and in record numbers that are substantially greater than the number of Slavs who were enslaved by non-Slavs during the entirety of the Middle Ages, and it renders the aforementioned non-Slavs as being more fitting to have their ethnonyms made “synonymous” with slavery
I understand why "we were forced by the British to stop using slaves" isn't taught in schools around the world. But it feels kinda gross that many. And I mean alot of people aware of history let slavery slide past them to England. You tell me how educators in the US didn't pick up on the uninformed opinions of their students? I don't buy it. I think I've just found the first conspiracy theory I actually believe. And it's gross.
Slavery wasn’t allowed in England since 1066 but outside it was, so there was a lot of Amazon and apple type companies of the day. Very much how it is today.
Something that I think you’d find interesting is the Somerset case of 1776 ( an American came to England with a slave called James Somerset ) when it was established in law that the moment a slave foot on English soil, he is free
Straight after the so call crusade against slavery, Britain started a new type of slavery- indentured labour, which is when the British tricked Indians ( while they were colonizing india) who were desperate for work, they signed a document promising them work in countries like Guyana , fiji and Mauritius, where they worked on sugar plantations, but it was not work, they were slaves, the British would call them coolies. Indentured labour is a not very talked about topic.
This is simply incorrect, indentured servitude has existed for over a thousand years. The first recorded examples were in India in the 4th century bc. Whilst some unscrupulous employers forced workers to sign unfavourable contracts, the vast majority of indentured servitude was for the reasons of debts owed, or apprenticeships, where an employee agreed to work for a fixed term, receiving wages, and often accomodation and food, in exchange for their labour, for a fixed amount of time, usually 5 or 10 years. You may have valid reasons to hate the British, but this is not one of them. Instead of listening to ignorant people on twitter/x perhaps you should read a book instead, there are many renowned authors from history, who wrote first hand experiences of slavery, indentured servitude, etc.
@wolfen210959 are you a white British ? ( or Anglo Saxon to be precise) if so, you're logic is predictable, defending the British thieving, inhumane empire to the end. I actually don't go on Twitter, I talk to Indians who had first hand experience in this area 😏.
Are you a Shudra or an Untouchable ?@@greendragonspirit1646
@@wolfen210959 First recorded examples of what? im so confused
You are writing bullshit. No people were tricked, the British Government in India went to great lengths to make sure no one was tricked. There were Parliamentary enquiries on this false claim back in the days.