BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:35 AM

I'm with jacqui c and dianavan. Right on the button, ladies, I'm proud of you both.
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:57 AM

memyself
so we should feel shame that some Britons engaged in slave trading, but we must feel no pride in the unique role this country played in the abolition of the trade?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:20 AM

So, historically, the town of Bristol says

Britain was a major player in the transatlantic slave trade. British ships carried 2,600,000 enslaved Africans in the 18th century to the Caribbean and the Americas. London was the leading British slaving port in the 17th century, with control over the trade until 1698. Bristol overtook London in the 1730s, and Liverpool overtook Bristol in the 1740s. These three ports are the ones commonly associated with the slave trade, but many of the smaller ports around Britain also joined in. Many of these small port towns pulled out of the transatlantic trade in slaves, sugar or tobacco leaving it to the larger ports such as Bristol and Liverpool. This was because they lacked access to the goods, cargoes, finance and experience of the larger ports. Some small port towns supported the slave trade through other means. For example, the herring fishing fleet from the town of Bridgewater in Somerset provided dried fish to the plantation slaves in the Caribbean. As elsewhere in Europe, not only port towns and cities were involved in the slave trade. Merchants from Birmingham (in the midlands) and Bath (in the south west) for example, invested in slaving voyages out of Bristol. Manufacturing towns, such as Birmingham in the midlands and Manchester in the north of England, sold products as trade goods to the slavers in the port cities. These included goods such as cotton cloth from Manchester, and guns and metal goods from Birmingham.

So, after the Parlimentary ban on slaving in 1807 it illegal to deal in slaves, but quite legal to a) supply trading materials such as cloth, alcoholic beverages, and guns to those who did engage in slaving and, b) deal in cotton, sugar and other products produced by slaves.

Even during the US Civil War, it was okay to supply guns, powder, and materials to the Confederacy and thereby support a slave-based culture. It was okay for England to take Southern cotton, picked and ginned by slaves and shipped either through Matamoros, Mexico or to the West Indies by blockade runners.

But that's all history, over and one with.

bWHAT ARE YOU DOING TO END THE SLAVERY THAT EXISTS TODAY??

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:29 AM

Anti-Slavery International

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:29 AM

I think this apology is just Blair's way of taking the heat off the things that he SHOULD be apologising for, like his government policies that have got the UK into an unecessary war and have left the country in a worse state than when he started. He should be apologising for misleading the electorate when he promised a 'no sleaze' government as well.

On the question of Africa I believe that it was in about the 7th/8th century that the Muslims started sweeping down from the north with a policy of 'you're Muslim or you're dead'. Looking at what is going on today in Darfur that still seems to be the policy in some parts. It appears that a lot of the slave traders were Arabs who took advantage of the fact that there has always been a market for human traffic, not just in the West.

Eurpopeans may have to take some blame for the imperialist policies prevalent during the past 600 years but, looking at the way that African behaves toward African I really do not see that the West can be held totally responsible for all the ills of that continent.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:36 AM

No one nation is alone in its guilt. Greed hath made sinners of us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:51 AM

You may be interested in what's happening in my home City (the home of William Wilberforce) now and throughout 2007.

Wilberforce 2007

Of course, 1807 didn't free the slaves, it only stopped the trade. It was another 30 years before the slaves were free, after 'adequate compensation' was paid to their 'owners'.

I agree with most of what's been said here, the futility of apologising for something that none of us were involved in, without making every effort to stop what is still happening now. But there is still value in making sure that more people know what happened in the Atlantic Slave Trade, who was involved in it, who profited from it and how it was suppressed. Please look at the links I've supplied, and, if you feel able, support the campaigns they identify.

Les

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:55 AM

The return of Teribus, the dead arose and appeared to many, how are your old friends Bush and Blair doing, they would have freed the slaves and sent them off to paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:31 AM

When will the Italians/Romans appologise for stealing our land and enslaving our people? The Vikings? The Africans who supported the slave trade? Arabs? such an appology would be too late, and meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 12:20 PM

Rapaire
At 09.20 today and 09.15 yesterday you seemed to be castigating Britain for not going far enough in the fight against slavery.
At least acknowledge that Britain was doing more than any other country on earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 12:30 PM

Okay. Britain was doing more than any other nation on Earth (as far as you and I know).

But my point remains: Britain sold trading goods to the slavers and used the raw materials of slavery to create profit for itself. Britain supported the Confederacy during the US Civil War, to its profit (for example: supplying arms and ammunition to BOTH sides, and let's not forget "...down the Mersey ways she slipped and then/Liverpool fitted her with guns and men", and of course there were those observers with the military of both sides who were ready to advise the British Government which way to jump.

If Britain was truly opposed to the slave trade, why would it continue trading with the slave-owning Southern states before and during the US Civil War?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:01 PM

Keith -

"so we should feel shame that some Britons engaged in slave trading, but we must feel no pride in the unique role this country played in the abolition of the trade?"

Steady on, there, old man. Perhaps you should re-read my posts:

'"Our work to stop the trade ... " YOUR work?'

"Sorry - I thought all the people involved in that unpleasantness were dead and gone. Silly me."

Does that sound like I'm saying you "should feel shame"? I'll put it as plainly as I can: I assert that Keith A, GUEST Sapper, and Snuffy, for that matter, were not involved in, and are not responsible for, the slave trade. I also assert that they were not involved in, nor are they responsible for, the abolition of the slave trade.

There, now. Somebody remind me next time to stay out of these threads with "Britain" in the title. Last time it was the Irish who were down me throat.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Snuffy
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:03 PM

If Britain was truly opposed to the slave trade, why would it continue trading with the slave-owning Southern states before and during the US Civil War?

Probably for the same reason that many US businesses continued trading with the slave-owning Southern states before and during the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:31 PM

(That last GUEST - 01:01 PM - was me; memyself that is. Okay, now I'm out of here).

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:36 PM

The City of London is a one square mile area. A financial district. It controls the financial activity of the world. Slavery never ended, it just morphed into financial control.

People who focus on historical slavery based on skin color, religion, nationality...you're just serving the agenda of the modern slavetraders. And any "leaders" who encourage you to dwell on the past at the expense of your kids' futures should be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:48 PM

Sadly all this happened before 1959, the year I landed, so bugger it, I can't get a chance to run off at the mouth.

Please take my word for this, the Provo's had nothing to do with the slave trade. just in case someone is ready to blame them.. Yes people were asked to leave their homes and loved ones because they were naughty. raping children, beating up pensioners that kind of thing. None were ever sold as slaves, promise.

I myself would of preferred if Mr. Blair would have said sorry for going into Iraq because George told him to. Or if he said he was going to say sorry for closing hospitals or spending billions on attacking some countries, again after George told him to.


So if anyone hears of a Swedish blonde slave for sale under 30, please pm the name above.

Thank you

Divis

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:01 PM

Whatever people in previous times have done, good or bad, whether our ancestors or not, it is never a matter of "US", it is always a matter of "THEM". If we remember that it might take some of the heat out of our arguments. We've got nothing to be ashamed of and we've nothing to be proud of. It's not us we are talking about.

If as a society we are richer and others are poorer because of injustice in previous times, there may be a debt to be discharged, but that is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Bert
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:11 PM

How about an apolgy and some recompense to the descendants of these slaves ?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Den
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:27 PM

Greg, I too am interested in theis statement that you made, "the Irish were notorious slavers". Could you detail please, thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:05 PM

Oh, I've never denied that the US acted shamefully. And I'm on record, I think, as mentioning the greed that was involved by all sides.

In fact, my wife and her friend are accumulating quite a bit of evidence that shows clearly that the federal government turned a blind eye to public sales of Southern cotton in the North, including in New York City. And these were not exclusively sales of cotton seized from blockade runners or captured by Union troops, but literal trainloads shipped North for sale -- the profits from which went to line the pockets of planters.

This flies in the face of "conventional academic teaching" as it has been since about 1962, so I will mention that my wife holds both a graduate degree in library science (specializing in academic libraries) and a doctorate in law. Her friend Mary holds a graduate degree in library science, a doctorate in law, and is ABD in American History. They are both well qualified to dig out the facts and well aware that any challenge to "conventional wisdom" had better be well supported by facts.

There was and is plenty of greed to go around.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:36 PM

The people who bought the cotton from the slave-owning Confederate States were called 'mill-owners'. Don't get me going about mill-owners...

You can also include the owners and operators of the blockade runners, which included many new fast ships specially built for that service, anticipating huge profits.

The lack of imported cotton caused great hardship in Lancashire, called the Lancashire Cotton Famine. Of course the people who suffered were the poor labouring classes, who ended up in the poorhouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:48 PM

There were probably more Irish slaves sent to the West Indies than Irish slave traders - but there were some of the latter. And at least one, Richard Brew would count as notorious.

But I repeat - when we are talking about history, it is never a matter of "us", it's always a matter of "them". Whether we are talking praise or blame, heroes or villains, slave owners or slaves. We can't shoulder any guilt, and we can't lay claim to any praise.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:50 PM

There were probably more Irish slaves sent to the West Indies than Irish slave traders - but there were some of the latter. And at least one, Richard Brew, would count as notorious.

But I repeat - when we are talking about history, it is never a matter of "us", it's always a matter of "them". Whether we are talking praise or blame, heroes or villains, slave owners or slaves. We can't shoulder any guilt, and we can't lay claim to any praise.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:55 PM

Den - there are two periods that I can think of involving the Irish in slavery. In the Celtic Period, slavery was a way of life, along with cattle stealing. But I don't think that the Irish were any worse than anybody else in those times - not much respect for life or property anywhere in the World.

During the Commonwealth Period gangs roamed the country adding more poor Irish slaves to the 'prisoners of war' who were shipped to the West Indies.

There were of course Irish involved in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the same as English, Welsh and Scottish, but they don't deserve any particular notoriety for this. The major blame should go to the Bristol and Liverpool 'merchants' and the owners of estates in the New World.

So on the whole I believe that the Irish were more predated upon by the British, Vikings and Arabs than they can be accused of being 'notorious slavers'. But there was a period (Romano-British) when it was considered risky to sail the Irish Sea for the fear of Irish pirates/slavers. Of course there are few written sources from this period and no real independent views. But it did provide Ireland with a Patron Saint!

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:08 PM

memyself, you may not have said Britain should feel shame, but the thread title does.
Rapaire, so although Britain did more than any other country to fight slavery, it still gets it in the neck for not doing even more?

Britain's shame is that some of its merchants joined the pre existing trade for a while.
Its pride is that it abandoned the lucrative trade on purely moral grounds and used all means possible to stop the Atlantic trade, with no help from any other nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:27 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the US, Britain, France, Holland, Germany, Belgium, and Spain can also be included -- to mention but a few. They ALL profited either directly or indirectly from slaving, both before and after the 1807 ban.

Austria, for instance, ALSO sold firearms to the Confederacy.

All I'm saying is that a number of Britons were greed-driven hypocrites, just as some US citizens were (and Canadians too, for that matter). One of my own ancestors would go South, help slaves escape, bring them to Southern Illinois (free territory), cross the Mississippi with them into Missouri (a slave state), and sell them back into slavery. (He was not a nice person, and after the single visit to his sister in which he told the family this he was never seen again.) He was a hypocrite, a liar, a criminal, and 'most anything you can think of to call him -- and he was not the only one.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:53 PM

My reference to Irish slavers has been queried, but others have answered for me. Partularly active in the Dark Ages, of course. And, since this is a folk forum, surely the most dramatic account of slaving in song is "The Flying Cloud"
"My name is Arthur Hollandin
As you may understand
I was born and raised in Dublin town
Down by the salt sea strand"

and the extraordinary verse:
The plague it came and fever too
It killed them off like flies
We piled their bodies on the deck
And hove them o'er the side
For sure the dead were lucky then
They'd have to weep no more
Nor drag the chain nor feel the lash
In Cuba for ever more"

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:07 PM

France was the first country to free its slaves, when they took the liberty, equality and fraternity literally in 1794, following the French Revolution. Unfortunately Napoleon Bonaparte (who some people seem to admire for some reason) actually reintroduced slavery in 1804. Britain was able to force the French to abandon the slave trade after the war in 1815 (but the French did nothing to enforce the ban until 1848). There was a big move at the end of the Napoleonic Wars to end the Slave Trade worldwide. Tom Pockock's book 'Breaking the Chains: The Royal Navy's War on White Slavery' relates the action in the Mediterranean culminating in the battles at Algiers, Acre and Navarino.

Actually, Denmark banned the trade in slaves from 1803, although they did not have the same facilities as the British to enforce the ban.

Probably the countries most desirous of maintaining the slave trade were Portugal, Spain and Brazil. It took subsidies of over four million pounds sterling to convince the first two to desist and the threat of military action for the last-named to ban the trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:47 PM

some of its merchants joined the pre existing trade for a while England had rather more significant a role in the trade than that.

Sir John Hawkins and later Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh, were pioneers of the slave trade, which tends to be overlooked in popular accounts of all those gallant Elizabethan seadogs:

"1562 saw the first English slave trader, John Hawkins, leave England with 100 men and 3 ships. He captured 300 slaves in Sierra Leone and sold them in Hispaniola. He was a resident of Deptford, South-East London and on his return with his ships filled with goods such as hides, ginger and sugar, he found a new business partner in Queen Elizabeth I.

By 1567, Hawkins was onto his 3rd slaving expedition and this time he took along Sir Francis Drake. He was yet another pioneer of the slave trade and also a Deptford resident. His family were well connected with slave trading, as was Sir Walter Raleigh."

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:07 PM

Rapaire - 29 Nov 06 - 09:20 AM

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO END THE SLAVERY THAT EXISTS TODAY??

Probably a damn sight more than you lot, after all we actually have got a history and track record of actually fighting to end/eliminate this trade, the implications and consequences of which your lot didn't seem to come to terms with until the the mid-1950's at the earliest. With regard to the Slave Trade Britain has no need whatsoever to hang its head in shame.

Towards the end of the Napoleonic Wars, at the Congress of Vienna, when the news arrived that Napoleon had escaped from Elba and landed on French soil, the Duke of Wellington insisted that the Congress remained seated until it was universally agreed by all the major powers of Europe that Slavery be abolished. He did get that undertaking by all parties present before he left to face Napoleon at Quatre Bras and Waterloo - Britain was the only country that fully honoured that undertaking - historical fact Rapaire, absolute bitch isn't it, the Hollywood theme of the Brits being the bad guys in this case just does not wash. Live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:31 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 29 Nov 06 - 07:47 PM

"some of its merchants joined the pre existing trade for a while England had rather more significant a role in the trade than that.

Sir John Hawkins and later Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh, were pioneers of the slave trade, which tends to be overlooked in popular accounts of all those gallant Elizabethan seadogs:"

By Christ MGOH, do you not spout some complete and utter crap at times. The above quoted directly from your post is so easily disproved that I wonder that you ever had the nerve to post it.

Some questions for you:
According to you - "Sir John Hawkins and later Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh, were pioneers of the slave trade"
Really? Please name the English colonies that these stalwarts pioneered the Slave Trade to. Now take into account that the first encounter that English colonists in the new world had with "slaves" was when they purchased New Harlem from the Dutch. Also take into account that the first slaves to work on plantations in Englands overseas possessions in Trinidad and Barbados were Scottish prisoners taken after the Battle of Dunbar during the English Civil War (A long time after the likes of Sir John Hawkins, Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh). So where did Sir John Hawkins, Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh obtain the slaves used for them to "pioneer" the Slave Trade? Who did they sell them to? ( At the time they were around there was a Papal Bull that had dived the new world between Spain and Portugal), Britain/England did not have overseas possessions at that time that required slave labour. Have you taken a damn good look at the size of the vessels they commanded? I don't think that you have. Go away and take a look at what you would dearly love to believe happened and match that up with what would have been physically possible, you will find that what you contend happened is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:44 PM

I come from a long line of British seafarers who did not participate in the slave trade by choice. Many who did made one voyage and quit. In my home town of Rochdale, Lancashire there is a gold headed cane from Abraham Lincoln. It was given to the town in appreciation of our support to the Union when we elected an MP (John Bright) who was instrumental in leading England away from supporting the Confederacy. This despite the fact Rochdales cotton mill industry benefited from cheap produce from the Southern States. What fucking shame???

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:16 PM

Teribus, I have never said that what Britain did to end the slave trade was dishonorable. What I did say is that SOME Britons (and others), because of greed, did things that helped slaving continue.

And all that Britain may have done in the past tells me NOTHING about what is being done to end slavery today. Don't tell me what you did, tell me what you are doing.

So...what HAVE you done to help end slavery?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:31 PM

Who said anything about them taking the slaves to any British Colonies? As that quote mentioned, they sold them to Spanish slave drivers in the New World, having captured them in Africa. A profitable business transaction, and they were first and foremost business men. Entrepreneurs/pirates/merchant adventurers.

Here's a BBC page about Hawkins and the slave trade. It's not exactly a new or secret revelation, it just something that tends to be passed over in popular accounts of the Elizabethan seafarers. (And here is a story form the Times earlier this year about one of Hawkins' descendants on a trip to West Africa - Slaver's descendant begs forgiveness

It's not a question of me wanting it to have happened. It happened. Nothing personal about it. And I'm not implying that Hawkins and co were uniquely responsible. The slavers were English, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Arab...

I'd much prefer it hadn't happened, that the whole slave trade had never happened. Not just because of the suffering at the time, but also because of the consequences we are still living with. (All right without the African American presence America and the world would be culturally much poorer, but the devastation to Africa has to outweigh that.)

And I quite agree that one of the corollaries of denouncing the past horrors of slavery should be a genuine determination to bring an end to the present day versions of slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:50 PM

According to Rapaire:
"Teribus, I have never said that what Britain did to end the slave trade was dishonorable."

Very true, but alternatively you certainly have not gone out of your way to give past British Governments credit for what they did do to to erradicate the slave trade, have you?

"What I did say is that SOME Britons (and others), because of greed, did things that helped slaving continue."

But at no time did you previously emphasise the extent of the role played those "others", or differentiate that the role played individual Britons was at complete and utter odds to the wishes and policy of the British Governmment of the day. True?

As I stated in my previous post the government of the United Kingdom has a proven track record in policy and implementation with regard to the erradication of the slave trade extending back through the past 200 years. The similar track record with regard to the same subject of your own government in real terms extends over the last 50 years.

So far YOU have told me nothing about what YOU, or your country has done. The track record and signed international accords of my country speak for themselves and requires no further amplification.

So please Rapaire YOU tell me...what HAVE you done to help end slavery? On a national level, I would stake the the proven track record of the United Kingdom against that of the United States of America or that of any other country in Europe with regard to the erradication of the slave trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:08 PM

Which I have never denied.

Ta for now -- I fly tomorrow and I must go pack.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:34 PM

Eh Kevin, have you EVER studied British Naval History? Have you ever studied European Naval History? I somehow very much doubt it.

From one of your links:
"Sir John Hawkins was an Elizabethan privateer and cousin of Sir Francis Drake. He was the first to kidnap the native African population and sell them in Europe or America."

Now taken at face value, this appears on a BBC web-site - By Christ it must be true!!! - Unfortunately not. Please tell me Kevin where abouts in Europe did Sir John Hawkins sell his slaves - Just one documented instance please.

Please refer to N. A. M. Rogers book "Sovereign of The Seas" - an excellent history book, specialising in European Naval History. In referring to this book you would find exactly what the state of English naval expertise was during the reign of Elizabeth I. Up until Sir Francis Drake's circumnavigation of the world it was about as much as possible for the average English sea captain to find the Isle of Wight, let alone some specific spot on the West Coast of Africa and thence to some lucrative market for slaves in some Spanish, or Portuguese colony that they were forbidden to trade with (Hey Kevin, you've got to remember that around this time Spain and England weren't actually getting along) The English and the Dutch rebels actually made their living by attacking homebound Spanish trade, not by selling them slaves - True?

Have you ever been down to Brixham in Devon, Kevin? Have you ever had a look at the replica of Drake's "Golden Hind", formerly known as the "Pelican". It was fairly representative of English ship building of the time, some vessel's might be slightly larger, some slightly smaller. Now I am 6ft 2inches tall, the vessel has two decks, upper deck and main gun deck. To span the main gun deck I could lie down head to toe three times. Where did Sir Francis & Co stow the slaves Kevin? Certainly not on the upper deck it's tiny and needed to be clear to enable the crew to work the ship. Certainly not on the main gun deck as that was where the crew of the vessel lived and that was from where they fought the ship, not really conducive to stowing a whole load of slaves for export to your enemies foreign possessions. How's the logic of this holding up so far Kevin? So far we haven't even addressed the logistical requiremnts involved in feeding and watering all those slaves plus the crew.

Just because some BBC web-site says something, just because the Guardian says something does not necessarily make something true. By all means read it, then apply a bit of logical and reasoned thought to it. In this case it simply does not add up.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:45 PM

Eh Kevin, have you EVER studied British Naval History? Have you ever studied European Naval History? I somehow very much doubt it.

From one of your links:
"Sir John Hawkins was an Elizabethan privateer and cousin of Sir Francis Drake. He was the first to kidnap the native African population and sell them in Europe or America."

Now taken at face value, this appears on a BBC web-site - By Christ it must be true!!! - Unfortunately not. Please tell me Kevin where abouts in Europe did Sir John Hawkins sell his slaves - Just one documented instance please.

Please refer to N. A. M. Rogers book "Sovereign of The Seas" - an excellent history book, specialising in European Naval History. In referring to this book you would find exactly what the state of English naval expertise was during the reign of Elizabeth I. Up until Sir Francis Drake's circumnavigation of the world it was about as much as possible for the average English sea captain to find the Isle of Wight, let alone some specific spot on the West Coast of Africa and thence to some lucrative market for slaves in some Spanish, or Portuguese colony that they were forbidden to trade with (Hey Kevin, you've got to remember that around this time Spain and England weren't actually getting along) The English and the Dutch rebels actually made their living by attacking homebound Spanish trade, not by selling them slaves - True?

Have you ever been down to Brixham in Devon, Kevin? Have you ever had a look at the replica of Drake's "Golden Hind", formerly known as the "Pelican". It was fairly representative of English ship building of the time, some vessel's might be slightly larger, some slightly smaller. Now I am 6ft 2inches tall, the vessel has two decks, upper deck and main gun deck. To span the main gun deck I could lie down head to toe three times. Where did Sir Francis & Co stow the slaves Kevin? Certainly not on the upper deck it's tiny and needed to be clear to enable the crew to work the ship. Certainly not on the main gun deck as that was where the crew of the vessel lived and that was from where they fought the ship, not really conducive to stowing a whole load of slaves for export to your enemies foreign possessions. How's the logic of this holding up so far Kevin? By the bye, we haven't even addressed the logistical requirements involved in feeding and watering all those slaves plus the crew yet.

Just because some BBC web-site says something, just because the Guardian says something does not necessarily make something true. By all means read it, then apply a bit of logical and reasoned thought to it. In this case it simply does not add up.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:49 AM

Teribus - "Without any doubt the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims, no need for them to be ashamed of anything though is there dianavan?"

The only one to be ashamed is Blair for having the audacity to apologize for the slave trade while heading a govt. that does very little to curb human trafficing and child labour.

Why bring the "Arabs/Muslims" into this thread? I think you and Blair are both thinly disguised.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:15 AM

I'm a bit let down down now. Greg said, "the Irish were notorious slavers" I was also waiting for him to give a detailed account to his statement, not the words of a song about some guy that was born in Dublin with a central European surname. Maybe Finnegan from "Finnegan's wake" was at it too ?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:11 AM

Google hit for Irish slaver.
Also Google "Lourenco Belfort"

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:12 AM

I've just had a word with Superman, he's going to travel backwards through time very quick, reverse time, and we won't be involved the slave trade.
he says, is there anything else you would like fixing, while he's at it? he doesn't do plumbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Hrothgar
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:31 AM

This all smacks of competitive political correctness.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:20 AM

Competitive political correctness? Sound like it could be introduced at the next Olympics:-)

Oh, hang on, competitive sports are not PC are they? Would it be OK if everyone that was there came in joint first so no-one felt deprived?

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:06 AM

No doubt that Irish raids on the mainland of Britain were carried out and that captives were taken as slaves. There were also recorded instances of Barbary Pirates using ports in the South East of Ireland as bases to attack shipping, those captured were usually taken back to North Africa and sold into slavery, once in the 1600's these Pirates raided the town of Skibereen and carried a very large chunk of the population off to slavery. That an unscrupulous trader, who happened to be Irish by birth, made money from the slave trade would not surprise me, just as the fact that others who happened to be English/Scottish/fill-in-whatever-nationality-you-like by birth happened to do the same would not surprise me. That does not justify the general accusation that the Irish were slavers, or that the British were slavers, particularly during the period when it was the active policy of the British Government to eliminate the trade.

"..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims" I will stand by that statement Dianavan because it can be easily proven to be true, it is extremely well documented and cannot be denied.

"The only one to be ashamed is Blair for having the audacity to apologize for the slave trade while heading a govt. that does very little to curb human trafficing and child labour."

Now you tell us what the UK Government isn't doing that all other Governments that have signed up for the Human Rights Charter are doing.

The thread discusses the slave trade, Britain is singled out for shame, Arabs/Muslims were introduced, to provide some sort of perspective - they were and still are the biggest players in this game - A question for you Dianavan, have you ever met any slaves? I have, in the United Arab Emirates and in Mauritania, in both instances the UK had nothing whatsoever to do with their condition in life, their Islamic Arab lords and masters however did.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:03 AM

Rapaire--


Re: public sales of Southern cotton in the North. Were these sales actually during the Civil War? Sounds fascinating.

Sorry about the thread drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:24 AM

Teribus I tend to agree with most of what you say. I wish more people would actually study these facts before starting a thread.

I am not answerable for what the British people did several hundred years ago.

The last time I replied to an entry from you Teribus you were attacking the people of my area, Balham. Something over a consruction site or builders yard. I do hope you now have a better understanding of us and took time to meet these great people.
Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:13 PM

About the Arab/Muslim point made by Teribus. It is a sad but true fact that Arabs/Muslims have had a greater impact on slavery throughout the years than have Western Europeans. More Sub Saharan African slaves were taken to North Africa, and over the Red Sea than were taken to the Americas, and the 'Barbary States' of Algiers and Tripoli, nominally part of the Ottoman Empire but in fact independent sultanates preying on the coasts and shipping of the Mediterranean that brought about the efforts to free the 'white slaves' after the Napoleonic Wars. Prior to this they had raided the coasts of the British Isles to capture slaves. These are often referred to as 'galley slaves' because some of them - the adult males - were used for that purpose. The Greeks suffered badly from being part of the Ottomon Empire, as the view was that any 'unbeliever' (non-Muslim)could be enslaved.

As to what people are doing about slavery today, can I urge you yet again to look at the links I provided earlier in the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:42 PM

I wasn't presenting the BBC site as a academic source, just as an indication that the slaving activities of Sir John Hawkins and his colleagues are generally accepted as facts of history. True enough, generally accepted judgements about are the facts of history can turn out to be wrong, but the onus of proof is on the revisonist historian.

If Teribus thinks that Hawkins and Co have been libelled, and that it is time for the record to be revised, I imagine he'll have his work cut out. But here isn't the place to achieve that.

Perhaps a good place to start might be to read this book Sir John Hawkins: Queen Elizabeth's Slave Trader, by Harry Kelsey and then write an online review on the Amazon site. correcting its errors.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Den
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:17 PM

So it appears we are talking mostly about the middle ages when we speak of Irish slavers, which pales considerably in comparison to the commercial trade of the last couple hundred years give or take. I think you will find that the Irish were more notorious slaves than slavers. By the way we came by our patron saint honestly enough. Brigid is the patron saint of Ireland not the French/English, pick your nationality, Patrick.