Two things that Britain did that went against all logic and financial reason, that was purely altruistic, was the banning of the slave trade and not negotiating a peace with the Nazis in 1940. No other country would have done either, as one massively reduced the nation's wealth and the other put us on the brink of extinction as a free nation. The anti slavery movement caught the public's sense of empathy for the slaves and It was the British people who pushed for and supported the ban. I am not being a "misty eyed" patriot saying this, no other country in their history has done anything like this. More credit should be given, but of course it won't. Those bastards would rather knock statues down instead.
You are right in some respects, but actually Britian did negotiate a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1938. Chamberlain came back with his historical and very inaccurate "Peace in our time" speach. The invasion of Poland broke that treaty and Britain declared war. Russia had already agreed a non-aggression pact too, why do you think Hitler was so confident? Both major powers at the time had agreed to remain neutral. America had already triggered the events that lead to Hitlers rise and the power play that brought about the event that followed.
@@daveofyorkshire301 I know about the "peace in our time" but it was after the total defeat of our army in 1940 I was referring to. Anyone else would have left Europe to it's fate. Hitler would certainly have negotiated a peace with Britain and it's empire and concentrated on moving east. The last thing the Nazis wanted was a war with Britain and France.
@@MattDW45 Do what? Win the war? If you mean we didn't do it alone, your right, no one is saying we did? If your talking about slavery then don't forget William the Conquerer ended slavery in 1088 when he criminalised owning or selling people. This is centuries before Empire.
@@dp-sr1fd it was pursuing the war that destroyed the Empire, we like every empire before us exhausted our resources in war and because of that lost the means to maintain an Empire. Unlike any other Empire before us only two members chose to fight to leave, the rest did so diplomatically and therefore reduced the impact of the breakup on them and us. However the UK took 40 years to recover from its collapse and reinvent itself.
As William Lecky wrote... “The unweary, unostentatious, and inglorious crusade of England against slavery may probably be regarded as among the three or four perfectly virtuous pages comprised in the history of nations.”
Like it or not the British ended slave trade using the royal navy. that fact cannot be disputed no matter how you try to twist it without the British the slave trade would have continued fro a long long time that is the a true facts of the matter many British sailors lost there lives by fighting to stop this evil trade.
@@tonywilkinson6895 yep, after 20yrs of the Norman aristocracy being brutal. William always had soft spot for us but couldnt control the conquerors. so he changed laws.
@@davidnicholls7532 actually in England Slavery became illegal in 1086 William the conquer banned it, (or fined people if they didnt pay, they had to be paid as free men .) the Norman Lords that came over which Normandy was part of England were brutal to local population. William didnt like the treatment and just wanted to claim the throne, not terrorize. God bless
Great work. The audience is however doing some mental gymnastics to make the British look bad no matter what good they did. Except the fact. We ended the Atlantic trade. Because of good men like WW.
Most of the questions from the floor are just defensive affirmations of that American spin that the British were the villains, despite the presentation generally debunking that from the word go. _What !? The British were the good guys ! Well what about ............ Does not compute !_
Seem to be an awful lot of people in the Lt. Col.'s audience struggling with the concept that GB were trying hard to stamp it out long before most others...
It is absolutely impossible for Americans to give credit where it is due. It's all about brainwashing their youth into thinking that the world only started in 1783.
I agree, i got the impression that some of the audience were uncomfortable with what he had to say, more worrying, uncomfortable with FACTS ... hence the push to re-write history
(I "liked" that enslaved people were freed, not that 20,000 British sailors died). It's amazing that it only took 1800 years to raise a Christian Empire to change the global attitude (maybe acceptance of?) toward slavery, an institution as old as opposable thumbs.
The people asking questions actually made me feel a little sick. Simply desperate to call British racists and not give any credit to every single tax paying British person who has payed to end the slave trade up until 2015. No care for the 20 000 sailors who lost their lives ending slavery. No mention of why the British navy was so powerful. It was due to the Barbary slave trade. Please look that up
The loan took out by Great Britain to buy out slavers within their Empire didn't get fully paid off until about 2015 I think. This (a push to end slavery) is one of the most altruistic actions of a major power in the history of the world. Edit - These commentators in the crowd. Slavery was as worldwide as war. At that time it was not widely seen as a bad thing
@Michael Talbot I've watched it too and thought it was amazing; it is so clear and precise in explanation because he starts the slavery history from centuries before and follows the timeline of events up to and beyond our crusade for the abolition. I think it would do well for the Colonel's audience to also watch it, to rectify their misconceptions!
I wish Schools in South London, particularly Pimlico taught this to the kids instead of the teachers joining the kids in demanding the Union Jack be taken down because it's a " racist symbol " .
In a strange way this puts agency backed into African countries at the time, when I think a common image is to see them as essentially entirely at the mercy of foreign power. For good and ill, they played a central role in it and weren't just helpless victims.
The trade started because the Africans provided an existing and, importanly, cheap and plentiful supply of strong slaves. It would not have happened otherwise. The horrifing practice got even worse (if that's an appropriate phrase) with the massive gowth in the export. However, Africa was long a source of slaves for both internal and export markets. The trade with the middle east is also rarely mentioned. It's interesting he didn't mention the Barbary Coast pirates and their impact on England's domestic political attitude to the slave trade.
The first Europeans to sail down the coast of Africa in the time of Henry the Navigator were offered (and bought) slaves from the first sub-Saharan Africans they encountered. Because slavery had been the norm for at least a millennia before Europeans went to sub-Saharan Africa.
The speaker is engaging, personable, interesting and very knowledgeable. There's a really good lecture in here somewhere. Unfortunately, the invitation to accept questions during the talk was a tactical mistake. The interruptions continually break up the narrative flow and seem motivated by a mean-spirited desire to undermine the idea that, God forbid, the British may actually have done something good out of good intentions. In my experience, Americans are typically a very generous minded people (the speaker himself is a case in point) but some of the audience here prove to be egregious exceptions to that rule.
yes i agree with you, people always have a harrd time accepting that britain banned slavery, when the man points out americas not so pleasant morals and they are still not accepring this.
I love the question "why don't more people know about this?" LOL. Come on. We ALL know why more people don't know about this... it doesn't fit the current political climate to point out that a European nation did something good.
You mean it was the Black/Arab race of peoples that started the Slave Trade, but it was the white race of peoples that stopped it, the final nail being the American Civil War
@@wonjubhoy ...thanks for adding to the knowledge and MY knowledge, i did read that when the British Empire expanded into Africa, various African Chieftans said {i'm paraphrasing here} "you can impose any Laws you want on us, but leave OUR Slave Trade alone"
Hollywood could have a blockbuster they actually need. Truthful, historical, action packed and undertaken for the right reason. The Royal Navy and Joesph Denman did me proud. Thanks for the lecture. A have gained further knowledge in addition to my own reading.
The reason the navy got the men they needed for the West Africa campaign was a very high bounty system on slaves freed. In spite of the extremely high risk to life they were paid exceptionally well.
@@ITzDaveXD yes, later their was a real heroic treatment for those involved, but initially high death rates and the risk of malaria etc wasn't much of an enlistment motivation... But if you had nothing and it was paying very well based upon the cost of living back then there was a practical consideration, the same reason soldiers accepted the King's Shilling.
I really hope someone makes a film about this. I would bet the British will be replaced with Americans in it though, to make it more appealing to Americans.
Great lecture. I always find it funny how Americans need to refer to movies to help them be understood. Unfortunately, too many Americans believe movies to be "actual" history.
a very insightful and informative talk, despite the resistant audience. but a real shame the video just ends mid sentence, i could listen to this guy talk about this topic for hours. please tell me he has a book or something.
Description says his book is called "Chasing Jericho: Tactical Adaptation in the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron and the Eventual Sudden Collapse of the Atlantic Slave Trade."
There are to many Black people in this Audience who are more interested in showing the bad side of The British whilst ignoring the fact that they spent Billions aboloshing the Slave Trade.
@@ryanparker4996 and taught that the only slavery that happened was Africans to the Americas and it was Europeans that captured the slaves. No other slavery happened, not to other races and nations and never black on black slavery which happens to this day.
He hasn't skimped on his studying of the topic, has he? If they had a question he had an answer. And it's nice to hear an expert on the topic, as opposed to snippets from would-be experts and naysayers. It was interesting to hear how the slavers adapted to the West Africa Squadron. For some reason I imagined that the Royal Navy just caught the baddies, I hadn't realised that there was an ongoing technical battle going on. Specifically, I didn't know that the slavers were using armed clippers to outrun the navy. What a magnificent effort by Britain, though, and especially by the ordinary sailors. It's a piece of British history that to all intents and purposes has gone untold. And of course in some quarters there will be huge resistance to telling it now. Sadly, it doesn't fit the narrative.
Very interesting, a bit less audience participation might have helped him keep his flow. Also finishes early, where is the end, it was just getting interesting.
King William in 1066 made slavery totally illegal on UK soil and anyone found with slaves had to pay a fine directly to the king.and that was maintained for hundreds of years. He drew up the Doomsday Book which listed all people in the UK
This video is a great example of the one sided propaganda people have been weened on. Quite sad and illuminating. How people can't accept and continue to pick away the fact the British were the 1st to put in law and be pro active in stopping slavery. This fact continually ignored.Especially in light slavery continued in the States till 1866 (officially, much data supports slavery continued) morphing into Jim Crow laws till the late 1960's in some States! Thanks Lt. Col. Dave Blair (USAF).
Technically it should be the "Royal British Navy" since that's the format for other the 16 other royal navies ie. Royal Norwegian Navy. If a country has a monarch and a navy, it has a royal navy.
@@hadrianbuiltawall9531 technically having the biggest most powerful most successful navy to ever exist in human history I think the Brits can call their navy what ever they like haha
@@timphillips9954 they don't need to tell Brits. All they need to do is say it enough times and the younger Brits today that get most of their entertainment from murica will repeat it.
the reason the numbers look so high after the abolishment compared to before is due to the fact that the slave trade had became extremely proficient at around this point, although a large amount of slaves continued to be move the amount of vessels actively moving the slaves had dramatically reduced. further more the british was otherwise engaged and was only able to spare a small number of vessels.
So where can I read more about this work - in book form, website, papers, etc.? I would like to really delve into the details on the things he talk about.
For me the story starts in 1725 with the creation of the Patriot movement as a branch of the British Whig Party. The word Patriot back then meant - ‘A factious disturber of government’. Patriots were later to become the British Liberal Party. Liberalism = A social and political philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise. Slavery was counter to Patriot ideals of Liberty, just as the opposition of American independence was counter to their ideals of democracy. Patriots were opposed by the Tory Party. This political struggle between Tory and Patriot Whig was to spread to America. However on the American side some of the founding fathers including perhaps Washington favoured independence, but did not fully embrace Patriot Liberalism. I’ve recently written about my home town of Rotherham Yorkshire England which was at the epicentre of Radical Whig activity. Our local heroes such as Lords Effingham and Rockingham struggled in Parliament to achieve Patriot objectives and are remembered today in the names of American Cities and Counties for their help in gaining independence, but their politics were largely abandoned following the creation of the new USA.
It seemed to me most of the questions were aimed at dismissing the main tenet of this mans arguments, that the British were doing this for selfish reasons.
Even if it were for selfish reasons (not sure why when the selfish action would have been to carry on making loads of money), the fact that slavery was abolished for the 1st time in history transcends any criticism. Without this moral argument and action by the British we might still think slavery was normal and acceptable.
Are you sure you mean what you’ve said there? The “main tenet” of Col. Blair’s lecture is most definitely NOT that the British abolished the slave trade for selfish reasons, quite the opposite.
There is this American thing that everything revolves around the US and other countries were constantly threatening it. The major British opponent was not the US but Russia having fought the Crimean war and invaded Afganistan. The major threat to the Royal navy was France, hence the Warrior and Black Prince. The biggest concern of the British was it a threat to Canada for which they built major fortifications and military canals. Despite the many US claims the threat was always the US threat to Canada.
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
Everyone in the comments are complaining about the questions asked by the audience! There is no point having a conversation in a vacuum! The people there asked questions that went against his position. Believe it or not, but that is how you get to the truth! If everyone just agreed with him, what would be the point in having an audience! This is facts, not politics.
I am shocked at how little the US Students know any history or facts. It was like an Enthusiastic Teacher talking to Dumb and Dumber. Q. Is the US Education System really this atrocious? The Dane, William the Conqueror, set up modern Britain. Immigration can have wonderful benefits. The UK is the most multi cultural nation on Earth, Australia will claim they are.
The audience really didn't like that some of the reason the English did this for was altruistic. They also really wanted to build up murica's role in this and murica as important to the English and the people. Rather than a bit of a thorn in the side at best. Didn't like that the English seen them the way they see the English now. Not that important.
Hi there my name is Dave and I'm from the UK. I have just watched this video and it appears that some information is not quite right. The speaker gave the impression that the first law against the slave trade was made in 1807. Not a true fact. The first law passed in England was centuries before and that can still be viewed to this day.
You are technically correct, but if that law was actually effective there never would have been a slave trade. Yes it was a law, that no Englishman can be sold as a slave, but it was a propaganda tool used by a conqueror to appease those he had conquered. Not only that, but William the bastard probably earned a lot of money because of that law. You are correct, but the context makes it a less noble deed. I'm English and a patriotic Englishman, but our history was dictated by the greedy.
Fact, England finished paying off the vast debts incurred stopping the slave trade in 2015. So much for r@ping the colonies and becoming rich... Another fact, after William the Conquerer took over England in 1066 he made owning or selling people a criminal activity. Only if they were criminals, debtors or enemies of the country were they deemed "indentured servants" and often deported to a penal colony like the Americas... The French, Dutch and Portuguese were pirates running the blockade - pirate to deny national ties and potentially cause a war. By acting independently they could continue without drawing attention to their home country.
@@daveofyorkshire301 There are AI bots that delete posts as well as channel owners manually deleting them. Ive had a similar issue when posting about some historical things. Ive always assumed its just that the AI bot is pretty trash.
Why can’t people just accept that the British fought the slave trade simply because they thought it wrong? Why bring “indentured” workers into it? Times were different then. Life was tough and unfair to everyone. And that includes the rich. Please try to remember, England, the main component of the UK, didn’t allow slavery starting sometime in the late ten hundreds!! Things got complicated when foreign peoples brought their slaves to England with them. But that was ruled out in 1772.
Just like to add to this that the British civilian population had no base in Slavery or it's culture at home in Great Britain . Also I don't think he made a good job in his lecture of the British psyche , who were appalled by the slave trade , when had their eyes opened by the anti slavery organisations ( WW etc ) & generally wanted to do the right thing around the world . Also at a time the slave trade was sadly a very profitable trade around the world . It's only recently , British taxpayers finally paid for this ( 2015 ) . Thanks for shining a light on this 🇬🇧
View from UK. BBC recently dumbed down so far (to please BLM) that it only got as far as the navy freeing only 6% of slaves and missed the rest of the iceberg involved in suppression, the impact of ship capture being the first and most obvious. Good stuff with the graphs and treaties etc & I did not realise the US role in building slave clippers.
For what I assume is an intelligent audience many of them obviously went into this lecture determined to continue thinking British all bad. There was some amazing selective picking of facts to try and disprove that the British actually did something good.
Ah, the British-forever eager to bask in the glow of their supposed moral triumphs, particularly when it comes to their "noble" crusade against slavery. But let’s not be fooled by this nauseating self-congratulation. The British love to boast about ending slavery, conveniently glossing over the inconvenient truth that they were, in fact, its enthusiastic architects. It’s like a doctor who poisons his patients only to demand a round of applause for administering the antidote-an antidote that was slow, grudging, and always self-serving. Let’s get one thing straight: Britain was not some benevolent savior that gallantly rode in to end the atrocity of slavery. Quite the opposite. For centuries, Britain built a vast empire on the backs of enslaved Africans, shipping human beings like cattle across the Atlantic in pursuit of sugar, cotton, and profit. British ships transported nearly 3 million enslaved people-more than any other nation. The British economy thrived on this abhorrent trade, with fortunes amassed in places like Bristol and Liverpool, where every pound sterling was stained with blood. And yet, when the winds began to change, and abolition became politically expedient, suddenly Britain wanted to drape itself in a cloak of righteousness. The Abolition Act of 1833, often held up as a shining example of British virtue, was, in truth, a calculated act of self-interest. Britain didn't end slavery out of the goodness of its heart; it did so to maintain control and expand its industrial empire. And let's not forget the shameless compensation scheme that followed: former slave owners-those who had profited immensely from the dehumanization of Black people-were lavishly compensated for their so-called "loss of property." Not a penny, mind you, went to the formerly enslaved themselves. Britain paid these slave owners a staggering £20 million, equivalent to over £17 billion today, a debt so enormous that it wasn’t fully paid off until 2015. That's right, taxpayers-many of whom were descendants of the enslaved-were still lining the pockets of the oppressors nearly two centuries later. And yet, Britain continues to prattle on about its abolitionist virtues as if this despicable reality didn’t exist. This false bravado, this nauseating arrogance, is nothing more than a hollow, grotesque performance-a deflection from the real story, one of complicity, exploitation, and profiteering. Britain didn't "end slavery"; it merely shifted tactics to ensure its economic interests remained intact. It found other ways to extract wealth and subjugate peoples, from exploitative colonial labor systems in India to the forced cultivation of cash crops in Africa. So, let’s stop pretending that Britain deserves any credit for ending a horror it helped create, perpetuate, and profit from for centuries. The moral high ground is not yours to claim, Britain. You don't get to play both the villain and the hero in this story. The truth is clear: Britain was a slaver nation that merely found new ways to continue its legacy of exploitation. The audacity to claim otherwise is nothing short of historical revisionism-a slap in the face to all those who still live in the shadow of its imperial crimes. So, to all the flag-waving revisionists who peddle this myth of British benevolence: spare us your sanctimony. The world knows better, and so should you.
Just adding: Thomas Sowell who wrote many books including Black Rednecks and White Liberals, also on RUclips is a good source of information on this subject
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
Two things that Britain did that went against all logic and financial reason, that was purely altruistic, was the banning of the slave trade and not negotiating a peace with the Nazis in 1940. No other country would have done either, as one massively reduced the nation's wealth and the other put us on the brink of extinction as a free nation. The anti slavery movement caught the public's sense of empathy for the slaves and It was the British people who pushed for and supported the ban. I am not being a "misty eyed" patriot saying this, no other country in their history has done anything like this. More credit should be given, but of course it won't. Those bastards would rather knock statues down instead.
You are right in some respects, but actually Britian did negotiate a non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1938. Chamberlain came back with his historical and very inaccurate "Peace in our time" speach. The invasion of Poland broke that treaty and Britain declared war.
Russia had already agreed a non-aggression pact too, why do you think Hitler was so confident? Both major powers at the time had agreed to remain neutral.
America had already triggered the events that lead to Hitlers rise and the power play that brought about the event that followed.
@@daveofyorkshire301 I know about the "peace in our time" but it was after the total defeat of our army in 1940 I was referring to. Anyone else would have left Europe to it's fate. Hitler would certainly have negotiated a peace with Britain and it's empire and concentrated on moving east. The last thing the Nazis wanted was a war with Britain and France.
Britain could only do it because of its empire.
@@MattDW45 Do what? Win the war?
If you mean we didn't do it alone, your right, no one is saying we did?
If your talking about slavery then don't forget William the Conquerer ended slavery in 1088 when he criminalised owning or selling people. This is centuries before Empire.
@@dp-sr1fd it was pursuing the war that destroyed the Empire, we like every empire before us exhausted our resources in war and because of that lost the means to maintain an Empire.
Unlike any other Empire before us only two members chose to fight to leave, the rest did so diplomatically and therefore reduced the impact of the breakup on them and us. However the UK took 40 years to recover from its collapse and reinvent itself.
As William Lecky wrote...
“The unweary, unostentatious, and inglorious crusade of England against slavery may probably be regarded as among the three or four perfectly virtuous pages comprised in the history of nations.”
Like it or not the British ended slave trade using the royal navy. that fact cannot be disputed no matter how you try to twist it without the British the slave trade would have continued fro a long long time that is the a true facts of the matter many British sailors lost there lives by fighting to stop this evil trade.
thousands of brits died fighting slavery
The Abolishment of slavery actually began in Britain back in 1086.
Thanks to William 1st 👍
@@tonywilkinson6895 yep, after 20yrs of the Norman aristocracy being brutal. William always had soft spot for us but couldnt control the conquerors. so he changed laws.
In England, not in Britain.
Does anyone think that the 1772 English court case that confirmed slavery was illegal in England was a factor in the US declaration of independence?
@@davidnicholls7532 actually in England Slavery became illegal in 1086 William the conquer banned it, (or fined people if they didnt pay, they had to be paid as free men .) the Norman Lords that came over which Normandy was part of England were brutal to local population. William didnt like the treatment and just wanted to claim the throne, not terrorize. God bless
Great work. The audience is however doing some mental gymnastics to make the British look bad no matter what good they did. Except the fact. We ended the Atlantic trade. Because of good men like WW.
Also amazing is what the British sacrificed to end the Saharan slave trade.
Great lecture. Col. Blair showed a lot of patience with an audience that seemed surprisingly uncomfortable with the subject matter.
And very willing to be anti British or Anti English based upon prejudiced preconceptions.
Most of the questions from the floor are just defensive affirmations of that American spin that the British were the villains, despite the presentation generally debunking that from the word go. _What !? The British were the good guys ! Well what about ............ Does not compute !_
Nobody wants to admit that they or their ancestors were ever wrong.
It's not just an American Spin.
Check out Yuri Bezmenof's talk about Demoralisation.
Seem to be an awful lot of people in the Lt. Col.'s audience struggling with the concept that GB were trying hard to stamp it out long before most others...
Agreed, pathetic, you can tell that The Guy speaking is getting pretty pissed off with it all.
They probably believed the yanks ended slavery.
It is absolutely impossible for Americans to give credit where it is due. It's all about brainwashing their youth into thinking that the world only started in 1783.
I agree, i got the impression that some of the audience were uncomfortable with what he had to say, more worrying, uncomfortable with FACTS ... hence the push to re-write history
what did you expect they've been told from a very young age the British have never done anything good
20,000 British sailors died freeing slaves.
(I "liked" that enslaved people were freed, not that 20,000 British sailors died).
It's amazing that it only took 1800 years to raise a Christian Empire to change the global attitude (maybe acceptance of?) toward slavery, an institution as old as opposable thumbs.
It was in fact about 1600 men.
The people asking questions actually made me feel a little sick. Simply desperate to call British racists and not give any credit to every single tax paying British person who has payed to end the slave trade up until 2015.
No care for the 20 000 sailors who lost their lives ending slavery.
No mention of why the British navy was so powerful.
It was due to the Barbary slave trade.
Please look that up
The loan took out by Great Britain to buy out slavers within their Empire didn't get fully paid off until about 2015 I think. This (a push to end slavery) is one of the most altruistic actions of a major power in the history of the world.
Edit - These commentators in the crowd. Slavery was as worldwide as war. At that time it was not widely seen as a bad thing
@AngelSubliminal Majik Many of us take a small amount of pride in contributing to such a thing
It was £20 MILLION in 1833, equivalent to £10 BILLION today, it was finally paid off in 2014
I watched "The British Crusade Against Slavery" on RUclips, its a great story and should be made into a movie 👍
@Michael Talbot I've watched it too and thought it was amazing; it is so clear and precise in explanation because he starts the slavery history from centuries before and follows the timeline of events up to and beyond our crusade for the abolition.
I think it would do well for the Colonel's audience to also watch it, to rectify their misconceptions!
Steven Spielberg's _Amistad_ has a great sideline on it.
I wish Schools in South London, particularly Pimlico taught this to the kids instead of the teachers joining the kids in demanding the Union Jack be taken down because it's a " racist symbol " .
In a strange way this puts agency backed into African countries at the time, when I think a common image is to see them as essentially entirely at the mercy of foreign power. For good and ill, they played a central role in it and weren't just helpless victims.
It was impossible without their involvement. Europeans couldn’t travel into the African interior so slaves had to be brought to them to be sold.
The trade started because the Africans provided an existing and, importanly, cheap and plentiful supply of strong slaves. It would not have happened otherwise. The horrifing practice got even worse (if that's an appropriate phrase) with the massive gowth in the export. However, Africa was long a source of slaves for both internal and export markets. The trade with the middle east is also rarely mentioned.
It's interesting he didn't mention the Barbary Coast pirates and their impact on England's domestic political attitude to the slave trade.
The first Europeans to sail down the coast of Africa in the time of Henry the Navigator were offered (and bought) slaves from the first sub-Saharan Africans they encountered. Because slavery had been the norm for at least a millennia before Europeans went to sub-Saharan Africa.
@@h____hchump8941 The Barbary slave trade.
My Great Great Grandfather joined the Royal Navy in 1853 and served in the West Indies and on the West Africa Squadron as an Able Seaman.
The audience are ridiculous, trying to posit a counter-argument instead of asking questions that investigate his lecture.
They just want to hear white man bad, Britain bad, Empire bad.
The speaker is engaging, personable, interesting and very knowledgeable. There's a really good lecture in here somewhere. Unfortunately, the invitation to accept questions during the talk was a tactical mistake. The interruptions continually break up the narrative flow and seem motivated by a mean-spirited desire to undermine the idea that, God forbid, the British may actually have done something good out of good intentions.
In my experience, Americans are typically a very generous minded people (the speaker himself is a case in point) but some of the audience here prove to be egregious exceptions to that rule.
yes i agree with you, people always have a harrd time accepting that britain banned slavery, when the man points out americas not so pleasant morals and they are still not accepring this.
I love the question "why don't more people know about this?" LOL. Come on. We ALL know why more people don't know about this... it doesn't fit the current political climate to point out that a European nation did something good.
Most Nations are Jealous of The British., they civilised the World.
You mean it was the Black/Arab race of peoples that started the Slave Trade, but it was the white race of peoples that stopped it, the final nail being the American Civil War
@@brianhodgson9547 not only that white countries forced black countries to abolish slavery against their will.
@@wonjubhoy ...thanks for adding to the knowledge and MY knowledge, i did read that when the British Empire expanded into Africa, various African Chieftans said {i'm paraphrasing here} "you can impose any Laws you want on us, but leave OUR Slave Trade alone"
Hollywood could have a blockbuster they actually need. Truthful, historical, action packed and undertaken for the right reason. The Royal Navy and Joesph Denman did me proud. Thanks for the lecture. A have gained further knowledge in addition to my own reading.
The only problem with that is Britain wouldn't even get a mention. it would the American that saved the day.once again.
This was fascinating, an awful lot of RUclipss are time I'll never get back but sometimes you get a gem like this in spite of some of the audience.
The reason the navy got the men they needed for the West Africa campaign was a very high bounty system on slaves freed. In spite of the extremely high risk to life they were paid exceptionally well.
Wrong. While yes they were paid handsomely but It was more just seen as what was right.
@@ITzDaveXD yes, later their was a real heroic treatment for those involved, but initially high death rates and the risk of malaria etc wasn't much of an enlistment motivation... But if you had nothing and it was paying very well based upon the cost of living back then there was a practical consideration, the same reason soldiers accepted the King's Shilling.
I really hope someone makes a film about this. I would bet the British will be replaced with Americans in it though, to make it more appealing to Americans.
Yup, the movie, U571 is a case in point - and a big concern is that many US Americans seem to get their history from Hollywood.....'The Patriot'??
Great lecture. I always find it funny how Americans need to refer to movies to help them be understood. Unfortunately, too many Americans believe movies to be "actual" history.
a very insightful and informative talk, despite the resistant audience. but a real shame the video just ends mid sentence, i could listen to this guy talk about this topic for hours.
please tell me he has a book or something.
Description says his book is called "Chasing Jericho: Tactical Adaptation in the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron and the Eventual Sudden Collapse of the Atlantic Slave Trade."
There are to many Black people in this Audience who are more interested in showing the bad side of The British whilst ignoring the fact that they spent Billions aboloshing the Slave Trade.
They have been taught to be ungrateful for their freedom and prejudiced against those who liberated them
@@ryanparker4996 and taught that the only slavery that happened was Africans to the Americas and it was Europeans that captured the slaves.
No other slavery happened, not to other races and nations and never black on black slavery which happens to this day.
@@Gambit771 They don't thank the Union soldiers who liberated them during the American Civil War either.
He hasn't skimped on his studying of the topic, has he? If they had a question he had an answer. And it's nice to hear an expert on the topic, as opposed to snippets from would-be experts and naysayers. It was interesting to hear how the slavers adapted to the West Africa Squadron. For some reason I imagined that the Royal Navy just caught the baddies, I hadn't realised that there was an ongoing technical battle going on. Specifically, I didn't know that the slavers were using armed clippers to outrun the navy. What a magnificent effort by Britain, though, and especially by the ordinary sailors. It's a piece of British history that to all intents and purposes has gone untold. And of course in some quarters there will be huge resistance to telling it now. Sadly, it doesn't fit the narrative.
Very interesting, a bit less audience participation might have helped him keep his flow.
Also finishes early, where is the end, it was just getting interesting.
Wonderful lecture. Is there a part two?
Anyone know where a fellow can get a copy of Chasing Jericho?
We call slavery "human trafficking" and "grooming" today.
And slavery.
King William in 1066 made slavery totally illegal on UK soil and anyone found with slaves had to pay a fine directly to the king.and that was maintained for hundreds of years. He drew up the Doomsday Book which listed all people in the UK
Great video. Inspirational.
This video is a great example of the one sided propaganda people have been weened on. Quite sad and illuminating. How people can't accept and continue to pick away the fact the British were the 1st to put in law and be pro active in stopping slavery. This fact continually ignored.Especially in light slavery continued in the States till 1866 (officially, much data supports slavery continued) morphing into Jim Crow laws till the late 1960's in some States! Thanks Lt. Col. Dave Blair (USAF).
Where's the rest of it?
Let's get the basics right. It's not the British Royal Navy. it's just called the Royal Navy!
Technically it should be the "Royal British Navy" since that's the format for other the 16 other royal navies ie. Royal Norwegian Navy. If a country has a monarch and a navy, it has a royal navy.
@@hadrianbuiltawall9531 Not even the Americans can tell the Brits what to call their navy Technically or not. It's known the world over as the RN.
@@hadrianbuiltawall9531 technically having the biggest most powerful most successful navy to ever exist in human history I think the Brits can call their navy what ever they like haha
@@mattdasilva1085 My reply disappeared. I agreed then and now.
@@timphillips9954 they don't need to tell Brits.
All they need to do is say it enough times and the younger Brits today that get most of their entertainment from murica will repeat it.
very interesting and informative 👏🏻👏🏻
the reason the numbers look so high after the abolishment compared to before is due to the fact that the slave trade had became extremely proficient at around this point, although a large amount of slaves continued to be move the amount of vessels actively moving the slaves had dramatically reduced. further more the british was otherwise engaged and was only able to spare a small number of vessels.
So where can I read more about this work - in book form, website, papers, etc.? I would like to really delve into the details on the things he talk about.
Such a shame about the sound quality.
Where’s the rest of the speech?
For me the story starts in 1725 with the creation of the Patriot movement as a branch of the British Whig Party. The word Patriot back then meant - ‘A factious disturber of government’. Patriots were later to become the British Liberal Party. Liberalism = A social and political philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise.
Slavery was counter to Patriot ideals of Liberty, just as the opposition of American independence was counter to their ideals of democracy. Patriots were opposed by the Tory Party. This political struggle between Tory and Patriot Whig was to spread to America.
However on the American side some of the founding fathers including perhaps Washington favoured independence, but did not fully embrace Patriot Liberalism.
I’ve recently written about my home town of Rotherham Yorkshire England which was at the epicentre of Radical Whig activity. Our local heroes such as Lords Effingham and Rockingham struggled in Parliament to achieve Patriot objectives and are remembered today in the names of American Cities and Counties for their help in gaining independence, but their politics were largely abandoned following the creation of the new USA.
A lot of Whigs were making some juicy profits off the slave trade.
Need the rest please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's always heartwarming to hear veteran American intellectuals talking about anti racism. So rare today.
Was there any mention of the Somerset case that confirmed a slave becomes free once he steps on English soil
It seemed to me most of the questions were aimed at dismissing the main tenet of this mans arguments, that the British were doing this for selfish reasons.
Even if it were for selfish reasons (not sure why when the selfish action would have been to carry on making loads of money), the fact that slavery was abolished for the 1st time in history transcends any criticism. Without this moral argument and action by the British we might still think slavery was normal and acceptable.
Are you sure you mean what you’ve said there? The “main tenet” of Col. Blair’s lecture is most definitely NOT that the British abolished the slave trade for selfish reasons, quite the opposite.
There is this American thing that everything revolves around the US and other countries were constantly threatening it. The major British opponent was not the US but Russia having fought the Crimean war and invaded Afganistan. The major threat to the Royal navy was France, hence the Warrior and Black Prince. The biggest concern of the British was it a threat to Canada for which they built major fortifications and military canals. Despite the many US claims the threat was always the US threat to Canada.
Stupid comment ,wake up.
@@tradeladder146 No factual comment, you are obviously incredibly ignorant of world history.
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
Everyone in the comments are complaining about the questions asked by the audience!
There is no point having a conversation in a vacuum! The people there asked questions that went against his position. Believe it or not, but that is how you get to the truth! If everyone just agreed with him, what would be the point in having an audience! This is facts, not politics.
I wish Lt Col Dave Blair never opened the forum to questions before finishing his lecture
I am shocked at how little the US Students know any history or facts. It was like an Enthusiastic Teacher talking to Dumb and Dumber. Q. Is the US Education System really this atrocious? The Dane, William the Conqueror, set up modern Britain. Immigration can have wonderful benefits. The UK is the most multi cultural nation on Earth, Australia will claim they are.
The audience really didn't like that some of the reason the English did this for was altruistic.
They also really wanted to build up murica's role in this and murica as important to the English and the people. Rather than a bit of a thorn in the side at best.
Didn't like that the English seen them the way they see the English now.
Not that important.
Hi there my name is Dave and I'm from the UK. I have just watched this video and it appears that some information is not quite right. The speaker gave the impression that the first law against the slave trade was made in 1807. Not a true fact. The first law passed in England was centuries before and that can still be viewed to this day.
You are technically correct, but if that law was actually effective there never would have been a slave trade. Yes it was a law, that no Englishman can be sold as a slave, but it was a propaganda tool used by a conqueror to appease those he had conquered. Not only that, but William the bastard probably earned a lot of money because of that law.
You are correct, but the context makes it a less noble deed. I'm English and a patriotic Englishman, but our history was dictated by the greedy.
Rule Britannia intensifies
It's amazing that most people can't see the parralels between history & that song right?
@@MsBabylove11 its almost asif what most people beleive about world history is totally wrong. Interesting right? We have marxism to thank for that
Why does my post keep getting deleted?
Fact, England finished paying off the vast debts incurred stopping the slave trade in 2015. So much for r@ping the colonies and becoming rich...
Another fact, after William the Conquerer took over England in 1066 he made owning or selling people a criminal activity. Only if they were criminals, debtors or enemies of the country were they deemed "indentured servants" and often deported to a penal colony like the Americas...
The French, Dutch and Portuguese were pirates running the blockade - pirate to deny national ties and potentially cause a war. By acting independently they could continue without drawing attention to their home country.
Strange how my post stays as a thread, but as a main post just dissapears???
@@daveofyorkshire301 There are AI bots that delete posts as well as channel owners manually deleting them.
Ive had a similar issue when posting about some historical things. Ive always assumed its just that the AI bot is pretty trash.
Why can’t people just accept that the British fought the slave trade simply because they thought it wrong?
Why bring “indentured” workers into it? Times were different then. Life was tough and unfair to everyone. And that includes the rich.
Please try to remember, England, the main component of the UK, didn’t allow slavery starting sometime in the late ten hundreds!!
Things got complicated when foreign peoples brought their slaves to England with them. But that was ruled out in 1772.
Just like to add to this that the British civilian population had no base in Slavery or it's culture at home in Great Britain . Also I don't think he made a good job in his lecture of the British psyche , who were appalled by the slave trade , when had their eyes opened by the anti slavery organisations ( WW etc ) & generally wanted to do the right thing around the world
. Also at a time the slave trade was sadly a very profitable trade around the world . It's only recently , British taxpayers finally paid for this ( 2015 ) .
Thanks for shining a light on this 🇬🇧
Must be a good school, there are no hysterical, sobbing 19-year olds trying to break in and hold a struggle session...
View from UK. BBC recently dumbed down so far (to please BLM) that it only got as far as the navy freeing only 6% of slaves and missed the rest of the iceberg involved in suppression, the impact of ship capture being the first and most obvious.
Good stuff with the graphs and treaties etc & I did not realise the US role in building slave clippers.
Should have left questions to the end.
Long live the Realm!
Fascinating comment about the eu at 1 hour 20 seconds
But the video is only 1 hour and 10 seconds long??
He stated that the British enslaved the Irish , not true , but the Irish had British Slaves one of them was St Patrick .
For what I assume is an intelligent audience many of them obviously went into this lecture determined to continue thinking British all bad. There was some amazing selective picking of facts to try and disprove that the British actually did something good.
'the slavers were not Christian, period' 😂 they really can't handle anything they don't agree with.
The most convenient way to disassociate what they identify with from atrocities. Pathetic though.
I have an announcement to make:
RULE BRITANNIA
that is all
@Pedro Ortega You probably wouldn't have lived long, in all probability, you would have been born into abject poverty and died at the age of 5
and the us couldnt of stopped them if they wanted too
I wish David Blair’s “intelligence” (and I use that term loosely) matched his character….. 😑
*di-do* 🆙️
Now do Arabian slave trade.
Ah, the British-forever eager to bask in the glow of their supposed moral triumphs, particularly when it comes to their "noble" crusade against slavery. But let’s not be fooled by this nauseating self-congratulation. The British love to boast about ending slavery, conveniently glossing over the inconvenient truth that they were, in fact, its enthusiastic architects. It’s like a doctor who poisons his patients only to demand a round of applause for administering the antidote-an antidote that was slow, grudging, and always self-serving.
Let’s get one thing straight: Britain was not some benevolent savior that gallantly rode in to end the atrocity of slavery. Quite the opposite. For centuries, Britain built a vast empire on the backs of enslaved Africans, shipping human beings like cattle across the Atlantic in pursuit of sugar, cotton, and profit. British ships transported nearly 3 million enslaved people-more than any other nation. The British economy thrived on this abhorrent trade, with fortunes amassed in places like Bristol and Liverpool, where every pound sterling was stained with blood.
And yet, when the winds began to change, and abolition became politically expedient, suddenly Britain wanted to drape itself in a cloak of righteousness. The Abolition Act of 1833, often held up as a shining example of British virtue, was, in truth, a calculated act of self-interest. Britain didn't end slavery out of the goodness of its heart; it did so to maintain control and expand its industrial empire. And let's not forget the shameless compensation scheme that followed: former slave owners-those who had profited immensely from the dehumanization of Black people-were lavishly compensated for their so-called "loss of property." Not a penny, mind you, went to the formerly enslaved themselves.
Britain paid these slave owners a staggering £20 million, equivalent to over £17 billion today, a debt so enormous that it wasn’t fully paid off until 2015. That's right, taxpayers-many of whom were descendants of the enslaved-were still lining the pockets of the oppressors nearly two centuries later. And yet, Britain continues to prattle on about its abolitionist virtues as if this despicable reality didn’t exist.
This false bravado, this nauseating arrogance, is nothing more than a hollow, grotesque performance-a deflection from the real story, one of complicity, exploitation, and profiteering. Britain didn't "end slavery"; it merely shifted tactics to ensure its economic interests remained intact. It found other ways to extract wealth and subjugate peoples, from exploitative colonial labor systems in India to the forced cultivation of cash crops in Africa.
So, let’s stop pretending that Britain deserves any credit for ending a horror it helped create, perpetuate, and profit from for centuries. The moral high ground is not yours to claim, Britain. You don't get to play both the villain and the hero in this story. The truth is clear: Britain was a slaver nation that merely found new ways to continue its legacy of exploitation. The audacity to claim otherwise is nothing short of historical revisionism-a slap in the face to all those who still live in the shadow of its imperial crimes.
So, to all the flag-waving revisionists who peddle this myth of British benevolence: spare us your sanctimony. The world knows better, and so should you.
Lt Col Blair for president
A Marxist historian don't make me laugh.....
I know right? What an oxymoron 😂
I lot of what he saying get lost in vocal fry
He looks like a right nerd
What do you look like?
I am going to use this as source material for a graphic novel.
Just adding: Thomas Sowell who wrote many books including Black Rednecks and White Liberals, also on RUclips is a good source of information on this subject
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄
In the Intro, David could have easily just said “thank you for the intro, it’s a pleasure to be here…etc, etc…” Rather, he stated “I wish I could live up to that intro”. What a humble brag!! 🙄