The American habit of beginning a lecture with a long introduction of the lecturer (usually also with an introduction of the one who introduces the lecturer) means that Dr Schama begins speaking at 7:49.
Over centuries things have gradually improved, a very hopeful sign for the future. Slavery was once common, normal and unquestioned, now, although it still exists, no longer is considered the right thing.
You're not ignorant, you're spot on. It was never about a sense of putting right a wrong doing, but all about economics. Both the 13th amendment and the subsequent emancipation proclamation are a façade of freedom. If you check into the actual body of law behind it you will see that. So was the civil rights movement, which gave the false illusion of inclusion into society.
The Brits stood alone against the rest of the world against slavery, when all other countries, especially Africa, wanted it to continue as it was so profitable. We sent out our Royal Navy to intercept transatlantic slave ships for over 40 years, at great cost to British tax payers. Manchester mill workers, themselves very impoverished, downed tools and refused to work with cotton picked by slaves in the USA. This prompted a letter of thanks from the then President Abraham Lincoln. That letter is still in the historical archives.
there were many different reasons for abolition, economics, the advance of industry, changes to the way society thought due to the enlightenment and also yes moral issues with the church involved there doctrines that we all are entitled to sin as equals and there wanting to be able to convert in greater numbers. It is ridiculous to think that there could be one sole reason to such a big change!!
I've just brought "Rough Crossings" on ebay for 99p. I hope I have not wasted my money. All this "ass kissery" then subsequent ramblings by himself, make me wonder if it was a wise investement .
I would hate to be a student, having to follow Schama's overly-verbose ramblings in a lecture. Jeez. Keep it simple and understandable, man. I'm an ex-lawyer and I could hardly keep up with this half the time. You'll find me in dictionary corner if you need me. :-(
Simon, you've talked for over an hour, and havn't said anything. Get to the point, what is it you are actually meaning to say? Forget about the accolades of former students, unless you actually make yourself clear, people will only nod in polite agreement.
I agree.... we should NEVER revise history but look squarely at the evidence FROM the times. The abolition was an act of morality - slavery did not square with the morality of the quakers and abolitionists! BUT they would not have succeeded had the West Indian planter class not been weakened and England (Britain) turning its attention to other sources of wealth. In other words, many issues resulted in abolition successes. Good lecture tho Lacking sophistication, I had to use the dictionary here and there... it was fun. What was not fun was his references to obscure 'history' with an almost smug smile knowing that half of his audience was unread in the matter but would be too embarrassed to admit it and therefore he could twist that history to his perspective. Still, one must allow brilliance some vanity! LOL It was thought provoking. It certainly answered my questions... why did America abolish the trade in 1808?
Over SEVEN minutes of introduction? Surely one minute is more than enough? Anyone at the lecture is surely going to know who Schama is anyway. Annoying.
A few years after the British government did this noble act,they took over India from the East India Company ant turned the Indians into "Coolies." Ever wonder why Indians are all over the world? Not to mention the man-made famines.
What rubbish! The famines, which also ravaged Europe, came from failing rains. Nor did they turn anyone into coolies. Muslim occupation for 800 years robbed the entire country and destroyed the entire foundation of their culture, not to mention that 450 million of Indian people got killed. It's on that history Britain was handed India on a platter by their own royal Maharaja's. They didn't occupy India.
@@nyuni3322 Rubbish! The British and their "your not getting anything just cause you are starving". (See also Ireland). Before the British a mutual support system was in place on the Indian subcontinent. When the British did eventually supply aid, those seeking it had to live and toil in work camps getting less food a day than the inmates of Dachau.
There was no man made famine in India. The 1943 Bengal famine occurred for three reasons. 1. Massive cyclone in autumn 1942 which obliterated hundreds of miles of Bengal crop lands. There was no famine in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944, and 1945. Why? No massive cyclones in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1943 and 1944. 2. The Japanese had just taken crop supply lands in Burma, thus worsening the food crisis, in addition to the million refugees arriving in Bengal escaping Japanese occupation of Burma. 3. There was a damn world war on and it was hard enough dealing with that. The extent of the Bengal famine was not fully realised at the time and there were other priorities. By the time the extent of it was realised Britain, including Churchill, strove to make sure it wouldn't happen again and requested support and help from the USA, Australia etc with ship loads of grain etc. There is proven written documentation of this. Oh and just a few years after the Bengal famine, Indians deliberately wiped out over a million other Indians during the partition.... just because they didn't like their religion. How about that?
Lecture starts at 7:49
Андрей Кравченко thank you! 😩
The American habit of beginning a lecture with a long introduction of the lecturer (usually also with an introduction of the one who introduces the lecturer) means that Dr Schama begins speaking at 7:49.
Over centuries things have gradually improved, a very hopeful sign for the future. Slavery was once common, normal and unquestioned, now, although it still exists, no longer is considered the right thing.
You're not ignorant, you're spot on. It was never about a sense of putting right a wrong doing, but all about economics. Both the 13th amendment and the subsequent emancipation proclamation are a façade of freedom. If you check into the actual body of law behind it you will see that. So was the civil rights movement, which gave the false illusion of inclusion into society.
The Brits stood alone against the rest of the world against slavery, when all other countries, especially Africa, wanted it to continue as it was so profitable. We sent out our Royal Navy to intercept transatlantic slave ships for over 40 years, at great cost to British tax payers. Manchester mill workers, themselves very impoverished, downed tools and refused to work with cotton picked by slaves in the USA. This prompted a letter of thanks from the then President Abraham Lincoln. That letter is still in the historical archives.
there were many different reasons for abolition, economics, the advance of industry, changes to the way society thought due to the enlightenment and also yes moral issues with the church involved there doctrines that we all are entitled to sin as equals and there wanting to be able to convert in greater numbers. It is ridiculous to think that there could be one sole reason to such a big change!!
Simon Schama brilliant as ever! Inspirational historian that he is!
A wonderful symphony of words held together by a deep understanding of the great tides of history.
The greatest speech ever!
@maureenOWW I think he just likes the sound of his own voice.
Thank you for this very interesting and educational lecture. Wonderful, unique anecdotes.
youtube comment board debates...boring, lame and pathetic
I've just brought "Rough Crossings" on ebay for 99p. I hope I have not wasted my money. All this "ass kissery" then subsequent ramblings by himself, make me wonder if it was a wise investement .
42:18 self criticism western tradition.
who else got set this by their history teacher?
I would hate to be a student, having to follow Schama's overly-verbose ramblings in a lecture. Jeez. Keep it simple and understandable, man. I'm an ex-lawyer and I could hardly keep up with this half the time. You'll find me in dictionary corner if you need me. :-(
schama is so full of himself.
Arrogant snob despises anyone who voted Brexit
It is supposed to elevate you rather than dumb you down.
Simon, you've talked for over an hour, and havn't said anything. Get to the point, what is it you are actually meaning to say? Forget about the accolades of former students, unless you actually make yourself clear, people will only nod in polite agreement.
I agree.... we should NEVER revise history but look squarely at the evidence FROM the times. The abolition was an act of morality - slavery did not square with the morality of the quakers and abolitionists! BUT they would not have succeeded had the West Indian planter class not been weakened and England (Britain) turning its attention to other sources of wealth. In other words, many issues resulted in abolition successes.
Good lecture tho
Lacking sophistication, I had to use the dictionary here and there... it was fun. What was not fun was his references to obscure 'history' with an almost smug smile knowing that half of his audience was unread in the matter but would be too embarrassed to admit it and therefore he could twist that history to his perspective. Still, one must allow brilliance some vanity! LOL
It was thought provoking. It certainly answered my questions... why did America abolish the trade in 1808?
Can't make it through introduction, Ego. 🕵
Yeah I think that TA has feeling for the lecturer.
ps their doctrines!!
Over SEVEN minutes of introduction? Surely one minute is more than enough? Anyone at the lecture is surely going to know who Schama is anyway. Annoying.
A few years after the British government did this noble act,they took over India from the East India Company ant turned the Indians into "Coolies." Ever wonder why Indians are all over the world? Not to mention the man-made famines.
What rubbish! The famines, which also ravaged Europe, came from failing rains. Nor did they turn anyone into coolies. Muslim occupation for 800 years robbed the entire country and destroyed the entire foundation of their culture, not to mention that 450 million of Indian people got killed. It's on that history Britain was handed India on a platter by their own royal Maharaja's. They didn't occupy India.
@@nyuni3322 Rubbish! The British and their "your not getting anything just cause you are starving". (See also Ireland). Before the British a mutual support system was in place on the Indian subcontinent. When the British did eventually supply aid, those seeking it had to live and toil in work camps getting less food a day than the inmates of Dachau.
There was no man made famine in India. The 1943 Bengal famine occurred for three reasons.
1. Massive cyclone in autumn 1942 which obliterated hundreds of miles of Bengal crop lands. There was no famine in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944, and 1945. Why? No massive cyclones in 1939, 1940, 1941, 1943 and 1944.
2. The Japanese had just taken crop supply lands in Burma, thus worsening the food crisis, in addition to the million refugees arriving in Bengal escaping Japanese occupation of Burma.
3. There was a damn world war on and it was hard enough dealing with that. The extent of the Bengal famine was not fully realised at the time and there were other priorities. By the time the extent of it was realised Britain, including Churchill, strove to make sure it wouldn't happen again and requested support and help from the USA, Australia etc with ship loads of grain etc. There is proven written documentation of this.
Oh and just a few years after the Bengal famine, Indians deliberately wiped out over a million other Indians during the partition.... just because they didn't like their religion. How about that?
He was QUITE boring - not a great speaker!