BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.

Subject: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:05 AM

Tony Blair has condemned Britain's role in the transatlantic slave trade as a 'crime against humanity' and expressing 'deep sorrow' that it ever happened and is seeking to distance himself from the actions of the British Empire, nearly 200 years after the 1807 legislation that led to slavery's abolition.

The importance of this challenges the deniers who don't admit that the British Empire caused so much social, physical and psychological damage. Britain will now back a United Nations resolution by Caribbean countries to honour those who died at the hands of international slave traders.

Estimates vary that between 10 and 28 million Africans were sent to the Americas and sold into slavery between 1450 and the early 19th century. By then Britain was the dominant trader, transporting more than 300,000 slaves a year in shackles on disease-ridden boats.

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, is said to be the influence behind Tony Blairs decision along with anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:23 AM

I do not think that Mr Wilberforce exerted much pressure on Blair

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:30 AM

Interesting point made by Labi Sifre (Remember him?) on the radio yesterday. He reckons the apology, while appreciated, is not really enough. He explained the difference between culpable and responsible. To be responsible for a crime you need to have commited it, to be culpable you need to be benefiting from it. While no-one today is responsible for these crimes against humanity an awful lot of people are culpable. To be still benefiting from the profits of the slave trade is wrong and a huge portion of those profits need to go to the poorer nations who suffered most to assuage that culpability.

I think it would be a difficult task to put an exact value on it but all those companies and corporations (think some of the shipping lines and tobacco companies for a start) who were founded on the money from this evil trade need to review how much of their sucess is attributable to monet raised from crimes committed. No-one else can get away with that.

Food for thought? Incidentaly, Mr Sifre did point out his particular dichotomy - He is of African descent but still benefits from this money by living in the UK.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:31 AM

Monet = Money (French impressionist version...)

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:39 AM

Britain deserves a little credit for being the very first nation to outlaw slavery, and for using its navy to forcibly end the transatlantic trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:39 AM

Of course we are daily awaiting an apology and generous compensation from the UK government to compensate us for the highland clearances.
The houses burnt and destroyed will be rebuilt, and restored along with their land, to the original owners and tenants, while the owners of the large estates will either be forced to live on them all the year round, or the estate will be confiscated and given to their tenants free of charge.
The highland clearances caused so much social, physical and psychological damage, along with an anti English sentiment among the native Scots population.
This righting of past wrongs will of course immediately restore the Scots love of the English, and all previous slights, and insults like using us as guinea pigs for the Poll Tax will be totally forgotten!


I thought that I'd throw this in while we were in the mood for rewriting history!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:44 AM

I thought it was the (Scottish) Clan chiefs and lairds that did that?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:46 AM

Sorry.
"John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, is said to be the influence behind Tony Blairs decision along with Hull Hertiage recalling anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce".

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:52 AM

Amongst others Keith, the Duke of Sutherland one of the worst offenders was also Duke of Bridgewater, and Marquess of Stafford. Many of the landowners were then, as they are today, non Scots absentee landlords, who employed factors to run their estates.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:56 AM

Thanks Giok.
Many were thrown off the land in England too.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:13 AM

I've said it on other threads. I'm sure I'll repeat it again. England was Britains first colony. We suffered as much from imperialism as much as anyone else. Only for longer!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:15 AM

Yes, England did much to abolish the slave trade.

Of course, after the ban there were a number of British businessmen who, while not engaging in such a trade directly, were silent partners and underwriters for those who WERE still active. And let's not forget good ol' Cecil Rhodes...English to the core, and an SOB of the first water. Ranks right up there with Leopold of Belgium in his care for Africans.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:24 AM

The recompense isn't owed for the past suffering, but for the present deprivation and inequality that has its roots in that past suffering.

Horrible things have happened throughout history, but slavery has consequences far beyond the suffering it caused at the time. The Atlantic Slave Trade had a devastating effect on Africa, and on the descendents of slaves, which continues to this day, and it played a significant part in generating the capital that generated the Industrial Revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Grab
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:30 AM

Labi Sifre doesn't also mention that Britain jacked it in and then spent the better part of a century hunting down slave ships (often American) until the slave trade ceased?

Nor that the European angle on the slave trade was just part of a huge network of African slavers - by Africans, for Africans, on Africans? Certainly the Europeans were the major "consumers" on the West coast, but there was a shitload of slavery going on between tribes across the continent, and trading slaves to the Middle East.

I'm not a denier in any shape or form. Slave transports rank alongside the Irish Famine as one of the most dreadful things that Britain was responsible for. But it's long past, so what would "compensation" accomplish? None of those who suffered are alive today. So who gets paid?

The various West African countries whose people were taken? But those countries haven't suffered from slavery. They've certainly suffered from dictators, propped up by imperialism from first the UK, Belgium, France and Germany, and then from the US and USSR. And from a lack of investment brought by civil wars and violence, which has led to underinvestment, low education and corruption. Slavery isn't the cause of their problems.

Or the Caribbean countries where they were shipped to, where British firms ran colonies, and whose descendants still live there? Probably the closest fit. But Britain also invested in schools and government setup in these countries before independence, with the result that I've read reports of Jamaican kids getting better schooling than kids in Britain. France (the other main colonist) OTOH didn't put anything into infrastructure, so for those countries, see "West Africa" for dictators, etc, and add drug cartels.

Or should Britain give the money to the US itself, to be channelled to Afro-American causes? But the US fought a civil war to remove slavery, in which many thousands of whites died so that blacks could be free. And even them, Jim Crow and subsequent oppression by whites kept the inequality going. The primary cause of black Americans' suffering is not the British who transported them, but the white Americans who oppressed them after transportation.

And then there's the question of who does the paying. It's pretty obvious that there's no shipping lines running sailing ships any more. Of the zillion ships of the time, how are you going to tell how much of existing shipping lines' current funds would have come from that? Especially given that most shipping lines went defunct long after slavery was abolished, so it's clearly continued good management and not slave-related funds which have influenced the survival of shipping companies.

In the same vein, it'd also be nice if mining companies paid out to the descendants of miners (not slaves, but unable to leave their jobs) who never reached more than 40 years old due to black lung, coal/fire-damp or simply the dangers of the job. Or clothing companies to the descendants of hatmakers who died from mercury poisoning. Or any country to the soldiers and civilians killed in the various wars across Europe to decide which bunch of murdering bastards got to rule us, or (like WWI) just because some silly bastards wouldn't back down. It ain't ever going to happen though.

At some point, we have to say that life back then was, to use the famous phrase, "nasty, brutish and short". Mostly it ain't so now and we know better, which is why Western countries (the countries themselves and private citizens) pump a ton of aid into Africa and other impoverished nations. We could then get into the problems of the World Bank stifling African development, but that's irrelevant to the slavery issue.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:00 AM

Exploitation and despoliation of Africa didn't stop when the slave trade ended, and its consequences haven't ever stopped.

Thinking in terms of compensation in a legalistic sense, with payments to individual descendants and so forth isn't the way to look at it. The point is, we are as a society a lot wealthier what we would have been because of slavery and the rest; and the countries if Africa and elsewhere are a lot poorer than they would have been.

We owe it to ourselves to do what we can to make good the damage and restore the balance.

Once again, it's not the suffering imposed then that should be the issue - it's the consequences of that suffering which continue to this day, in the form of poverty, wealth and inequality.

Yes, and there are past events in our own countries that impose the same kind of moral logic. For example there is a particular debt owed to mining communities which have lost their reason to exist, so that whole populations are stranded in wastelands.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:15 AM

At the time of the slave trade, coal miners in Scotland were also legally slaves- the only caveat being that they could not be forcibly moved to another colliery by their owners.

Industrial and agricultural workers in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales were not slaves, oh no- but the choice was starve or work for what you're given. Driven from independence by enclosure and mechanisation, our g-g-g-grandparents had little or no benefit from the capital squeezed out of the bodies of Africans. The prosperity we have was wrung out of the exploiters by the brave actions of our parents and grandparents in their trades unions, helped by the rulers' fear of the rival economic model of Socialism.

So should the descendants of people who were exploited by the merchant pirates of England, Scotland, the American Colonies, Spain, France, Portugal, Holland etc. be expected to compensate other victims of the same thieves?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:24 AM

Solidarity of the descendants of slaves would suggest that they should indeed wish to do so, wherever they live.

Rather in the same way that, when there are appeals for famine relief elsewhere in the world, people in Ireland, descendants of those who suffered in the Famines, have been notoriously ready to dip into their pockets.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:30 AM

We are all Guilty.
Now, Mr/Ms Busybody activist person, please tell us what we're supposed to be guilty about this week, so you can feel superior.

What a load of utter rubbish. Slavery was terrible. So was the highland cleareances. So was every war going, etc, etc. There is no point in apolgising for things outside of living memory.

If the prime minister wanted to do something meaningful to apologise for suffering we have caused, then he'd do something about the agricultural subsidies in the West, which cause endless poverty and hunger, or make schools in africa free, or a dozen other things. But those would take real action, and money. Blair is only good at pointless platitudes, and starting wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:16 AM

Apparantly the payments of interest from loans to poorer nations is many times higher than the aid we send so we are in a profit situation. This could, not saying does, but could, stem directly from maltreatment of those poorer nations all those years ago. Agree about the compensation - no point in paying any - but should we really still be profiting from British and European imperialism and slave trading? I don't know the answer - Just asking the question.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:27 AM

African debts
G

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:32 AM

Got any information on what actually happened at those meetings 17 months ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:51 AM

Putting money where your mouth is requires that you do put your mouth in the first place. If the money isn't forthcoming, the mouthing was meaningless.

Abolishing debt burdens on poor people is an obvious duty in itself, as an aspect of common humanity. Linking it to an obligation incurred through slavery, the suffering caused on the one hand and the profit unjustly acquired on the other, is justifiable in itself, and could also help in actually motivating the changes required.

Tying it to individuals on a basis of whether they could prove descent would be a blind alley. It would lead to nonsenses under which, for example, someone who was partially descended from slave-drivers and partly from slaves would be entitled to less than someone who could prove that all their ancestors at the relevant time were slaves.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:27 PM

Apropos of "who gained": has anyone ever visited any "Staely Home of England", perhaps administered by the National Trust, where there's any information on just how much of all that stateliness and vulgar display was financed by profits from Jamaican &c sugar plantations worked by slaves?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:51 PM

People are queuing up to point at the English, dont forget that the Irish were notorious slavers. A lot of history that people study is so patriotic that it is worthless.
    I am with McGrath completely: disgust at the practise of slavery should not just lead to compensation for people perceived to be descendants of slaves. It should motivate us all to attempt to remedy the defects in modern society which are the results of the horrors of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:57 PM

Not many I would guess ABCD. I don't think they were financed mainly from the West Indies. I believe it was primarily home grown slavery of the mills and mines sort. Unless someone can show me otherwise?

I think something along the lines of McG's last post would be more in keeping. Maybe there is something along those lines that the first world can agree to?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 03:42 PM

We owe to all our ancestors a decent life for their descendants -- not because the ancestors were enslaved, exploited, killed by the droves, used and discarded as miners, raped, burned or boiled alive, or whatever, but because to do any less would be less than what it truly means to be human.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: lady penelope
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:26 PM

I'm with Rapaire.

The past histories and, indeed many of the current situations, of people and countries in the 'third world' are dreadful. I think the emphasis should be on what the 'west' is now doing to these countries (the IMF, for example, is a major force for evil in this) and what we, as human beings should do for other human beings, because they are in need.

Blamestorming is a pointless activity and produces nothing of any value what so ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:32 PM

Apologies are irrelevant, meaningless and self-indulgent. I am not going to apologise for starting the slave-trade, nether do I expect a medal for trying to stop it. I wasn't there, on either occsion. But it would be nice to have a think about what we could all do tomorrow that might be useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:38 PM

greg stephens "the Irish were notorious slavers" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:57 PM

The idea of apologies and compensation for actions of our ancestors is complete nonsense, as I think some who posted above try to point out.
We should all apologise for killing off the Neanderthals, erect expensive memorials, and focus science on reconstituting Neanderthals so that we can pay them restitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:05 PM

GUEST - how did Saint Patrick arrive in Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:17 PM

Apologies by themselves are forms of words. But they can be important when they lead on to action.

If an apology for what our predecessors did helps us in doing what we can today for people who are to in many cases still suffering as a consequence of these crimes, that is a justification in itself for the symbolic act of making that apology.

It is good for us to learn about what has been done by people who are part of our history. It is a warning, and a reminder that we have to be on the alert for the same kind of inhumanity breaking through in another form in modern society - as has happened only a few years ago in countries in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa and in Asia.

In addition, an apology has a significant benefit that tends to be negkedted - it enables the recipients of help to recognise it as the payment of a debt of honour, and not as a handout which threatens to turn them in to beggars. And it is a promise that things have changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:36 PM

The Irish were notorious slavers in the 3rd century they were into using hoovercrafts at the time, although I think St Patrick arrived by Easy-Jet.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:40 PM

Might I mention that slavery is still ongoing today in some Islamic countries? Perhaps the western nations encouraging present slavers to end this barbaric practice would go a long way to bringing humanitarian progress to the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:40 PM

A "hoovercraft" travels by sucking up, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 05:44 PM

There was a lady on BBC TV yesterday morning, shouting about this very subject... she had no argument when the presenter asked her what compensation she was requesting from her African brethren who sold their own people into slavery. She was so busy declaiming the 'white' slavers, she couldn't accept that there were slave traders of all races.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:27 PM

Since what is now the US was actually colonies of England when the slave trade was started, shouldn't the US be compensated by England because England got the US "hooked" on the slave trade?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:35 PM

But how far back are we going with this? Can the English claim compensation from the French for the fact that the Normans effectively enslaved the English back in 1066? What about the 'damage' bought about by the Romans in their conquests?

I believe that slavers used to raid Cornish villages and sell the people into slavery in North Africa. Has there ever been any apology for that?

I think that our lords and masters would be better occupied putting an end to abominations like the genocide in Darfur than in making mealy mouthed apologies just to make themselves look good in the history books.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:48 PM

If it helps them in providing help where it in needed, and in making it easier for people who need that help to get it, and it makes us more aware of the terrible this people like us were doing not long ago, it's well worth doing.

If it's just words it's hypocrisy. But it can and shouldhelp in doing all those things.

Once again, the focus shouldn't be on the suffering in the past, but on the consequences of that in the present. That's where it differs from the kind of historical injustices that jacqui pointed to there. The consequences of those have worked themselves out, in a way that hasn't been true of the Atlantic Slave Trade. It's analogous in that way to the Holocaust - people are still suffering today because of what happened then.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 06:51 PM

f it helps them in providing help where it in needed, and in making it easier for people who need that help to accept it, and it makes us more aware of the terrible things people like us were doing not so long ago, it's well worth doing.

If it's just words it's hypocrisy. But it can and should help in doing all those things.

Once again, the focus shouldn't be on the suffering in the past, but on the consequences of that in the present. That's where it differs from the kind of historical injustices that jacqui pointed to there. The consequences of those have worked themselves out, in a way that hasn't been true of the Atlantic Slave Trade. It's analogous in that way to the Holocaust - people are still suffering today because of what happened then.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:27 PM

Its so easy to be sorry for something that somebody else did in the past. Empty platitudes are without teeth but usually get alot of air time.

How about doing something about the slavery that exists today? I'm sure Britain benefits from all those tiny fingers that weave the lavish carpets from India. Do the British refrain from wearing clothes made by children in China? What about sex slaves? I'm sure Britain has a few of those, too.

Give me a large break. Apologizing for the past does not make up for the ongoing slavery today.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:19 PM

You're dead right, dianavan. The child slaves who harvest chocolate in Africa, the child sex slaves in Thailand and elsewhere, the sex slaves of the Imperial Japanese Army in WW2, the parents who sell their daughters and sons as prostitutes.... Slavery exists today just as much as it has in the past, and we close our eyes to it just as much as our ancestors did.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:44 AM

How can we apologise for slavery when slavery at the time, and for most of human history, was accepted as the norm. If we could resurrect an old slave trader from the past, like John Hawkins, he would wonder what the fuss was all about. He would point out that at the time no one questioned slavery, maybe not even slaves-although they probably pitied their lot- so what is the point? Europe approved of slavery without question, as did Africans and Arabs, all of whom were active in the trade. We should be wary about projecting modern views and attitudes on past generations. They don't fit. We should also be wary about this whole apology culture that is a product of white middle class people wallowing in guilt-and loving it. For them, it has a curious cathartic effect in exactly the same way some people from minority groups (I refuse to call them communities) wallow in victim status.

Instead, we should try to view history objectively, try and see events from all points of view and by the mindset of the time, and fight against injustice in the here and now.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 05:16 AM

I'm still wondering why Blair went anywhere near this whole can of worms at all. He's normally politically very astute, and won't do or say anything** unless it is popular with the country, or whatever section of his party he needs to placate today.

He must have known that for anyone who actually likes what he said would be greatly outnumbered by those wishing he'd said more, whose wanting him to do something in the here and now, and those just wishing for him to shut up and go to Tuscany for good. I'm leaving out the considerable portion of people who's opinion of him could only get worse if he married George Bush.


** Except Iraq....

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 05:39 AM

Complete and utter meaningless waffle, at best I suppose it serves as a distraction from more important matters.

Britain's shame of Slave Trade? Balanced by the measures that Britain and Britain ALONE took to erradicate that Trade. Ongoing consequences of Britains involvement in the Slave Trade - Nil, Zip, Nada.

The slave trade on the west coast of Africa, like all "good businesses" was very well documented. In all the time it was carried out, there were only ever two instances where European slavers went ashore to capture black slaves. The main source of slaves was from the tribal chiefs who sold either their own subjects or prisoners taken on raids into slavery. 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?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 05:59 AM

U till um Teribus, The man has found his voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Sapper at work; being *** about by Bletchly
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 06:10 AM

Exactly Teribus, after the anti-slavery actions initiated by Wilberforce, the UK has nothing to apologise for. Our work to stop the trade wiped the slate clean.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:00 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Snuffy
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:20 AM

Yes, OUR shameful history of slave trading in the 17th and 18th centuries, and OUR work in the nineteenth century to eradicate it not just from OUR (British) territories, but elsewhere throughout the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:34 AM

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

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:24 PM

It is a bit of a shame that so many are using this thread to try to imply that "other people" were worse slavers than the writer of tuhe post. All of the nations of Britain, and Ireland, have a strong historic connection with slavery, as has probably every other nation in the world. My own ancesteors(chielfy Cornish, Devon and Cumbrrian) come from areas particularly associated with the maritime industries in the 1500-1800 period, and of course at that timeslaving was a huge part of that indistry. Now, whether my ancestors were personally involved I have no means of finding out, but I imagine it is perfectly likely. In fact, it is a statistival virtual certainty that all posters to this thread are (a) descended from slavers and (b) descended from slave.
    The question is, what might we do about it it? And trying to imply that certain nations or ethnic groups weren't implicated is ludicrous. In the old days, every natiom)however you care to derfine that term) was guilty.
    And to Divis Sweeney: the quote from the Flying Cloud, as I should thought was blindingly obvious, was to give a harrowing immediate and chilling account of what was commonplace then throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Folksong, as is often the cae, can give us a closer look at history than many books of scholarship.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:57 PM

Sorry Den - I forgot about your other patron saint, Brigid. You are wrong however to deny that Patrick is a patron saint of Ireland, and the one most people will know, and also has the advantage over Brigid of actually having existed!

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Den
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:20 PM

Greg, I objected only to your terminolgy. I felt that your use of the word "notorious" was unwieldy and in context unjustified.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Den
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:36 PM

Les, Brigid is the patron saint of Ireland. There can only be one. As for your comment that she didn't exist. That is unfathomable. Brigid as all Irish scolars will tell you was born in Faughart, near Dundalk, County Louth. Its also lucky to hang a Saint Brigid's cross in your home. You might want to try that.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:52 PM

Greg gives us an account of Irish slavers, when did we have a fleet of slavers, a few raids to north-west Britain in the dim and distant pass [3rd century], which gave us St Patrick. The small leather curraghs used would have been incapable of carrying two or three persons.
I would think more of our people were made slaves of than most countries in Europe, thousands were transported to the West Indies by Cromwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:33 PM

My girlriend has a Saint Brigid cross in her house. But the tradition of burning it on Imbolc and getting a new one - doesn't that strike you as a bit pagan?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:20 PM

I would also like to read that account Ard mhacha. Really can't think of where these Irish fleets sailed from, was it Howth ? Belfast Bay ? Larne ? or Cove ?

Always willing to listen. Divis.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:47 PM

Les, almost every christian tradition has a pagan connotation, the location of most churches were previously pagan sites, Christmas, Easter and many other festivals were previously pagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:57 PM

History as far back as the third century is at best well educated supposition. The Romans were on their way out or already gone from most places. The indiginous celts and picts had no written language. As far as we can tell the 'viking' style longboats were used in raids on the coast of Britain from all over the place. I do not believe for one minute that the Irish were more adept at those raids than anyone else or that they took more slaves than others but it does seem to be taken as read that all races took their fair share of people in those raids. I believe it would be up to the revisionists to prove anything else. Not that this realy has any bearing on the subject in question!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:53 PM

Is Tony Blair saying sorry for things this far back ? or is it since the times of the Commonwealth ? Please let me know so I can write to Bertie Ahern.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:48 PM

Teribus - "..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.


So what does that have to with Blair apologizing for Britain?

Are you saying that no apology is due because others did it too or are you saying its O.K. for Britain to continue human exploitation because Arabs/Muslims do it?

I'm saying that it would be more meaningful if Blair did something to stop the present human rights abuses than to apologize for something that happened so long ago. I'm sure it makes little difference to the victims of today that Blair is apologizing for yesterday.

Blair is such a puffball.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:22 PM

Teribus - "..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.

I also would like to see some documentation confirming this

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:49 PM

I take it then Guest Mohammed Smith that you do not come from either Mauritania or Sudan.

Simply Google "Modern Day Slavery" and read it all for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:05 AM

Teribus, further up this Thread you state in one of your long winded replies that Skibereen was raided by north African pirates, Baltimore in County Cork was raided and a number of English settlers were taken from that town,there was never any record of Skibereen being raided, Also please provide the "Ports" in Ireland used by the north Africans when they raided the English coast. remember that England had by that time almost complete rule in Ireland, apart from Ulster.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:44 AM

And I take it you don't come from Hawick, in that case, Bill.
Googled as you directed, and found loads of stuff about the Transatlantic Slave Trade 1807-2007, plus a ton of stuff about Child soldiers.
No statistics, however to prove your contention that 'Arabs/Muslims' are the chief perpetrators of the today.

Can you please provide your evidence, instead of asking me to prove your own point for you.

Provide the figures, Teribus

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:27 AM

As requested Guest Mohammed Smith:

Holocaust: The Numbers (Take note Mohammed Smith - the figures given below are only from the East African Slave Trade)
Due to the enormous length of the Arab Slave Trade, from 700 to 1911AD, it is impossible to be certain of the numbers of Africans sold in this system. Estimates place the numbers somewhere around 14 million: at least 9.6 million African women and 4.4 African men.


It has been estimated that in all, at least 14 to 20 MILLION African men, women and children died throughout this trade. (Photos and Information courtesy of The Black Holocaust for Beginners by SE Anderson, A Pictorial History of the Slave Trade, Slave Trade of Eastern Africa by Beachy, Slavery in the Arab World by Gordon Murray and Africa in History by Basil Davidson)

The only glaring inaccuracy in the piece given above is the last date given 1911AD, the trade still flourishes to this day - UN estimates 90,000 Blank African Slaves (predominantly of the Dinka Tribe) are enslaved in Sudan, while over 100,000 are held as slaves in Mauritania - as far I can ascertain Mohhammed there are none in Hawick.

More to follow Mohammed......

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame at slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:27 AM

Perhaps if the heading of the thread had been modified slightly, as I've done above this post, we might have avoided going off in the direction that led greg to write:
It is a bit of a shame that so many are using this thread to try to imply that "other people" were worse slavers than the writer of the post.

Slavery does continue to exist in various forms - and not just in places far away, like Mauretania. Pretty obviously any repudiation of past involvement in the slave trade is hollow, unless it goes along with continued vigilance in abolishing it, and preventing it reawakening in some other form.

But there's no point in using that as a kind of diversionary tactic, a way of making the Atlantic slave trade seem less outrageous in retrospect. The point of any such comparison should be the other way round - to shock people into recognising that what is still happening today is a continuation of what the slave traders did then.

For an analogy: prejudice and oppression of gypsies continues in the modern world, but no one would argue on that basis that somehow the genocide carried out of gypsies by the Nazis was not all that out of the ordinary. Rather they'd point out that in one way such actions were a continuation of what the Nazis had done.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:00 AM

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/trafficking_persons_report_2006-04.html


http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:03 AM

As requested Guest Mohammed Smith:

Slavery in Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East

Main article: Arab slave trade
For Muslim views on slavery, see Religion and slavery.

The Arab world has traded in slaves like many other cultures of the region. It was one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by hundreds of years. The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade is thought to have originated with trans-Saharan slavery. The Moors, starting in the 8th century, raided coastal areas of the Mediterranean and Northern European (including British and even as far north as Scandinavian) coastal areas and would carry away sometimes whole villages to the Moorish slave markets on the Barbary Coast. Nautical traders from the United States became targets, and frequent victims, of the Barbary pirates, as soon as that nation began trading with Europe and refused to pay the required tribute to the North African states. The slave trade from East Africa to Arabia was dominated by Arab and African traders in the coastal cities of Zanzibar, Dar Es Salaam and Mombasa.

Male slaves were employed as servants, soldiers, or laborers by their owners, while female slaves, mostly from Africa, were long traded to Middle Eastern countries and kingdoms by Arab, Indian, or Oriental traders, some as female servants, others as sexual slaves. Arab, Indian, and Oriental traders were involved in the capture and transport of slaves northward across the Sahara desert and the Indian Ocean region into Arabia and the Middle East, Persia, and the Indian subcontinent. As many African slaves may have crossed the Sahara Desert, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean as crossed the Atlantic, perhaps more. Some sources estimate that between 11 and 17 million slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 to 1900, compared to 11.6 million across the Atlantic from 1500 to the late 1860s. The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade continued into the early 1900s.

Many Slavic males from the Balkans, and Turkic and Circassian males from the Caucasus Mountains and the eastern Black Sea regions were taken away from their homes and families and enlisted into special soldier classes of the army of the Ottoman Empire. These soldier classes were named Janissaries in the Balkans and Asia Minor, and Mamelukes in Egypt. The Janissaries eventually became a decisive factor in the intrigues of the Istanbul court of the Ottoman sultans, while the Mamelukes were mainly responsible for the expulsion of the Crusaders from Palestine and preventing the Mongols from entering Egypt.

The Arab trade in slaves continued into the 20th century. Written travelogues and other historical works are replete with references to slaves owned by wealthy traders, nobility and heads of state in the Arabian Peninsula well into the 1920s. T. E. Lawrence documented practices in which African Muslims performing the hajj would bring a son with them to Mecca and there sell him into slavery. Slave owning and slave-like working conditions have been documented up to and including the present, in countries of the Middle East. Though the subject is considered taboo in the affected regions, a leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country's religious curriculum has called for the outright re-legalization of slavery.

Ard,

Thanks very much for the correction you are right the Port "raided" was Baltimore, not Skibereen. Will get the other information as soon as I can get to the source reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:20 AM

Teribus You haven`t come up with any information on the raid on Skibereen by the Corsairs, also the ports in Ireland used by the north African Corsairs,still waiting.
You could have mentioned that those same north AfricanS were aided by Elizabeth the first of England, when she provided weapons to the Moroccans for use against the Catholic Portuguese,also Charles the first was happy to seek the help of the Moroccans against Spain in the 1620s.
England relied on Algeria and Morocco to provision Gibraltar and Minorca two of her colonial outposts during her war with Spain, at the same time, the Corsairs were raiding English shipping around her southern coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:45 AM

"Don't you dare criticise me for beating my wife! The man next door does it as well!" So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:50 AM

I take it that you did not read my previous post ard, which contained the following:

"Ard,
Thanks very much for the correction you are right the Port "raided" was Baltimore, not Skibereen. Will get the other information as soon as I can get to the source reference."

Sorry if 17 minutes is too much of a delay for you - but it will take longer than that.

Interesting times weren't they ard - nothing is ever black and white - only shades of grey.

With regard to the times of "Good Queen Bess" you've got to remember that England was the mouse that roared and successfully saw off the supreme "Super Power" of the day. When she came to the throne England was bankrupt and the navy built by Henry VIII was derelict and in ruins. Catholic Spain, hell bent on heretic England's destruction, was something to be reckoned with. When you are in a desperate situation and you are fighting for survival, you tend to make some very strange allies. Elizabeth, not having the money to rebuild a Navy to defend her realm, privatized the task and put it in the hands of extremely competent seamen. Spain suffered a death by a thousand cuts, inflicted on her by the English, the Dutch (first people to actually defeat Spain's Armies) and the Corsairs, who actually were used to attacking everybody and anything wherever they happened to come across it, so the fact that they were attacking English shipping should come as no great surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:54 AM

You are missing the point MGOH. I was aked to substantiate something I had said - I believe that I have.

"..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."

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:06 AM

Teribus it is not good enough to casually state that Irish ports were used by the Corsairs and also your statement that an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. He was a fisherman who was picked up and in fear of his life guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. The inhabitants of Baltimore were English "settlers", the records show that the names of those captured and killed were English.
Only two women of all of those captured were ransomed from Algiers namely Ellen Hawkins and Joan Braybrook.
When the Spanish Armada in 1580s lost many ships and men on the west coast of Ireland, they were very very quickly rounded up, so your Irish ports hideouts for the Corsairs is one I have never come across and has never been mentioned in any of the books I have on this subject.
For further information read Captives by Linda Colley.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:27 AM

ard mhacha - 01 Dec 06 - 09:06 AM

"Teribus it is not good enough to casually state that Irish ports were used by the Corsairs and also your statement that an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. He was a fisherman who was picked up and in fear of his life guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. The inhabitants of Baltimore were English "settlers", the records show that the names of those captured and killed were English."

Ard Macha, you really should start taking more water with whatever it is that you are pickling what remains of your brains with. A number of points:

1. Having reviewed the posts I have made to this thread I wrongly identified the port in South East Ireland raided by Corsairs as Skibereen.

2. You corrected my mistake and I acknowledged my error, stating that I would get back to you with regard to Corsirs activities off the South coast of Ireland. Please note Ard I have at this time only mentioned Baltimore once in acknowledging my mistake.

3. Now having only mentioned Baltimore once in the context explained above can you please cut and paste the part of any post of mine where I state that - "an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore."

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:43 AM

Teribus, In your research did you find any reference that any of the Irish slaves "squealed like canaries" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:52 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:01 AM

The reply from Teribus speaks volumes on the mans mental state, he hasn`t recovered from backing Bush and Blair in the Iraq disaster, his insults to varies people on this Thread shows him for what he is a long winded know all who was found out.
If I hadn`t corrected him on his ramblings about Skibereen, Ireland, and it`s ports of refuge for the corsairs, he would never have owned up. Do everyone a favor and disappear once again, back up Bush`s ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:23 AM

"Now having only mentioned Baltimore once in the context explained above can you please cut and paste the part of any post of mine where I state that - "an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore"

Can't you find that "statement" of mine Ard Macha????

Big difference between you and me Ard, is that if I have stated something in error I at least admit to it - damn sight more than can be said for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:40 AM

Don't usualy like to but in on a private argument but what 'insults to various people' are those, Ard? I haven't seen anything from Teribus worse than, to MGOH, 'do you not spout some complete and utter crap at times'. That seems to have been taken in good part and is insulting the words rather than the person. Your phrases 'long winded know all' and 'disappear once again, back up Bush`s ass' seem rather un-called for. I know there is a long history here but resorting to personal insults is far from your usual standard and normaly the ploy of someone with nothing better to say. I can see nowhere in this thread where Teribus resorts to this. Maybe you can see something I am missing. Can you point it out?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:50 AM

Anyone watch the Adventures of Captain Pugwash last night ?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:09 AM

It all seems pretty distasteful, all this scrapping about irrelevant matters in a thread discussing one of the biggest atrocities in the history of the human race.

It's a bit like a bunch of trippers having a punch-up in the Menem Gate about the rights and wrongs of the Norman Conquest.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:05 PM

You may be right ,but I am still laughing.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:09 PM

Teribus could be right in what he said. Only problem is he won't tell the rest of us where he read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Barnacle Bill the sailor
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:23 PM

I was taking a great interest in this until it got out of hand, I hope to put everyone right about how the Algerian Pirates found their way into the ports in the south of England.
They took any fishermen they found and with a little gentle persuasion the fishermen guided them in.
They didn`t really need to take the fishermen they were hot on their tail as they hurried to the safe haven of their ports, the Algerians came in on their wake and carried out their mayhem.
One of their most notorious pirates was a Dutch seaman turned Moslem who had a good working knowledge of the English coast,he was reputed to be held in awe even by the Algerians.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:58 PM

You mean "Slavery In The Arab World" by Murray Gordon, Teribus, don't you?
better sharpen up, there Teri...

I know a few books, too:
"Race and Slavery in the Middle East": An Historical Enquiry by Bernard Lewis
"Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora" by Ronald Segal
"White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives" by Paul Baepler.

None of these books I have read, as I'm quite sure you haven't neither.

I asked for figures.
I would like you to provide at least a few page references to maintain your revisionist opinion.

Sometime before Christmas, that is

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Barnacle Bill the Sailor
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:11 PM

Referring to Algerian pirates using Irish ports they did so at the behest of the English rulers in the Irish province of Munster Sir William Herbert along with his subordinates used the pirates to carry on illict trading, the wine and other goods were pirated from English and French ships.
Sir Edward Denny used his castle near Tralee to exercise the illict trading, Denny also had seats in Cornwall and south Wales, he did for the pirates in Munster what he had done previuosly in his Welsh and Cornish estates, Denny was later on created Earl of Norwich.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:45 PM

Well here we go again folks! It seems that any mention of country, race, colour or creed here on Mudcat will bring out plenty of people of similar counrty, race, creed or colour in defence, regardless of any proven facts. Why is it when any such is mentioned, people feel that they have to leap in, even regarding events that happened hundreds of years ago.

Unless you can build up a reasonable argument, such utterances will only be your own opinion, and should be treated as such. So here's my opinion. (why should I be any different?).

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:49 PM

You must admit Les it is very informative, keep them coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:02 PM

Well here we go again folks! It seems that any mention of country, race, colour or creed here on Mudcat will bring out plenty of people of similar country, race, creed or colour in defence, regardless of any proven facts. Why is it when any such is mentioned, people feel that they have to leap in, even regarding events that happened hundreds of years ago.

Unless you can build up a reasonable argument, such utterances will only be your own opinion, and should be treated as such. So here's my opinion. (Why should I be any different?)

Sure, some Irish were involved in slavery round about the third century. They were Celts. Anybody with any romantic notions of what Celts were like should read about their head-hunting, cattle raiding and slavery. But slavery was rife in those days, most societies in Western Europe and probably most other parts of the world were doing similar things.

The Arabs/Muslims have a well-documented history of slavery, both in Africa and the Mediterranean. That isn't to say that all Arab/Muslim people are slavers, or condone slavery. That would be stupid. One aspect of Muslim slavery not yet addressed you can read about here Ward the Pirate and this must be true, because there's a folk song about him! Now I feel no need to defend Captain Ward or apologise for his actions, even though he's English and shares the same surname as me.

We could all use the Mudcat to pass on information to each other to make us better informed. But just because someone said something here, or for that matter in most other places on the Internet, doesn't make it true. Now play nicely...

Les Ward

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:06 PM

Sorry about that GUEST, something weird happening and I was sending my reply and nothing was happening. I blame the orbiting mind-control satellites, or the secret Mudcat Illuminati, but that's just my opinion! I wonder if this will get through...

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:23 PM

"Some sources estimate that between 11 and 17 million slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 to 1900, compared to 11.6 million across the Atlantic from 1500 to the late 1860s. The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade continued into the early 1900s." Teribus Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:03 AM

So, let's see.
Average of 15 mill 'Arab' slaves in 1,250 years, compared to 11.6 mill Trans-Atlantikers in 360 odd years.
Going on those figures, Transatlantic Slave trade would only have needed to have existed for another 106.25 years, hitting the 15 mill mark in only 466 and a quarter years, leaving seven hundred and eighty-three (and three quarters)

11.6 million for 466, declared.
The Arabs were all out for 1250.

Read the scores on the boards, Teribus, old lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:34 PM

A period of history above my head, would have to search the net for information, so happy to just read your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:36 PM

But, anyway.
If the Arab countries, or the Scottish or Irish Parliaments decided that the shame of their part in the Slave Trade was so dispicable as to warrant almost an apology (Japanese and German governments, since the War have been obliged to remind us pn a regular basis that they've been bad boys in the past), well then, let them do so.

But this thread isn't about them.
It's about England's shame.

Let's try to focus, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:52 PM

Now let's see what my original contention was Mohammed Smith:

"..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims"

In terms of time that trade has been going on since the 700's, it continues to this day in Mauretania, Mali and in the Sudan.

Your averages Mohammed smack of someone who when confronted with the facts that they themselves demanded clutch at staws to refute what is the undeniable truth of the matter - ""..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims"

Your:
"So, let's see.
Average of 15 mill 'Arab' slaves in 1,250 years, compared to 11.6 mill Trans-Atlantikers in 360 odd years.
Going on those figures, Transatlantic Slave trade would only have needed to have existed for another 106.25 years, hitting the 15 mill mark in only 466 and a quarter years, leaving seven hundred and eighty-three (and three quarters)"

That's sort of like declaring, "If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle". Truth of the matter would remain, "She hasn't, and she isn't"

Just read the statistics Mohammed, according to my arithmatic 15 million is a greater number than 11.6 million - no need to extrapolate or play with them, oh and by the way those figures for the Arab/Muslim trade were good up until sometime in the 1920's, but that trade has yet not been stopped.

Instead of Blair apologising he and other world leaders should be putting pressure on the Arab/Muslim states to outlaw and suppress slavery - Hard to do because their religion accepts slavery as being acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM

What about the shame of using something as horrible as slavery simply to troll on, of all places, a folk music internet site.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:11 PM

The batting average was greater, Teribus. (by your figures)
That is what's known as 'The wider scheme of things'

And still no sign of any documented evidence from you.

You can't even get the author of a book right, Teribus, and if you were that au fait with the subject, you wouldn't have made that mistake.

You're bluffing, Teribus.

Documented figures, please!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:18 PM

I like statistics as a way to prove things. They can show that half the people in the world are below average intelligence, that everyone in the UK is on a decent living wage and that I have 2.4 children.

I particularly like Mr Smiths. From now on I can prove that the holocaust figures were wrong. Only 6 million Jews killed in the history of the Germanic peoples? Let me see, say 1500 years (round about when the Saxons were invading). That's only 4000 a year. That's only 80 a week. More than that are killed on the roads in a large town! Makes the gas chambers look like nothing doesn't it. Let's ignore them as well as the Arab slave trade then...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:21 PM

Liars, damned liars, & Statisticians....

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:23 PM

Indeed, Dave.
And that there is a '9/11' every day in Africa.

Wider scheme of things

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM

Only thing is Mohammed Smith - they are not MY figures - Are they, they were compiled by authors, scholars, and government agencies who apparently made far more extensive studies and researches into this trade than either you or I.

Oh! In listing Authors of works Mohammed if you were looking for something by Charles Dickens, in a bookshop or library would you look under "D" or "C". It is quite normal for names of authors to be inverted in source lists.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:05 PM

Nobody knows whose figures they are, Teribus; you keep on neglecting to tell us.
In a source list, yes I would agree. Why would you only type it that way for one author, and not for the rest?

To compare Arab and English Slave trading, surely one must have the perameters equal.
Your accounting for an extra seven hundred and eighty-three (and three quarters) years is not making comparison possible, except in 'Slaves/Year' terms.
You, yourself pushed that proposition forward, so maybe your auntie does have balls, after all.

Damn sight more than you have, by the sounds of it.

Documented evidence, please Teribus.
So far what we have gleaned from our excursions down the statistics road is, that England mechanised the Slave trade, with a whopping 11.6 million units processed in 360 years.

No wonder Blair nearly said sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:03 PM

Teribus - You don't get it.

Regardless of how many slavers there are in the Arab world, Blair is speaking for Brits. The figures regarding the Arab slave trade have nothing to do with an apology for the British slave trade.

If Blair really cared, he would do something about the Brits who are still actively involved in human trafficing and slave wages being paid for British consumption. The Arabs have nothing to do with that.

Blair cannot and should not meddle in the affairs of other nations. He is, however, responsible for the affairs of his own country. He may influence other countries through trade and diplomacy but you point to others as culprits when Britain contributes to human suffering.

I think you have a little problem with accountability.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:21 AM

I see how this has now translated from "Britain's Shame" to "England's Shame" in the mind of Mohammed Smith. How did that come about Mohammed? And in his interpretation of the figures supplied Mohammed seems to think that England was the only country involved in the trans-Atlantic trade. Where did that idea come into your head Mohammed? because that is not strictly true is it Mohammed? The Spaniards, Portuguese, French, Dutch and the Americans were also involved in the trade.

From the song "Blow, Boys, Blow"

Was you ever on the Congo River
Blow, boys, blow
Black fever makes the white man shiver
Blow, me bully boys, blow

A Yankee Ship Came down the river
Blow, boys, blow
Her masts and yards they shone like silver
Blow me bully boys blow

Now what do you think she had for cargo
Blow, boys, blow
Loaded with black sheep to run the embargo
Blow me bully boys blow"

One thing is for certain Mohammed, neither England, nor Britain was solely responsible for the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade - Fact, learn to live with it. My view is that Britains sole efforts to erradicate the trade and to outlaw slavery internationally against some pretty stiff opposition wipes our slate clean.

Doesn't matter how much you twist and turn the following remains true:

"..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims"

They did it for longer, they captured and sold more slaves than anyone else, and they are still doing it today, now how about us reading something by yourself where we see you demanding that this trade be stopped by those who are actually still practicing it. One things for certain Mohammed - It ain't England.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:10 AM

Any word on the Irish ports?, I see the English gentry had a nice little earner going, trading with the Corsairs, surely this can be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:38 AM

I think there may be more word when you answer the questions that were posed to you, Ard. What is the problem? You were jumping up and down when Teribus made a mistake, for which he later apologised and corrected his error. Yet you appear to have posted things that were untrue with no retraction, let alone apology. Why is perfectly OK to raise issues about any facet of British imperialism, for which you have the support of most people, yet if anyone suggests that the Irish are less than perfect you go ballistic?

Not that this has any relevence to the point in question. Anyone attempting to win political points from this evil trade, including Blair and many here, is beneath contempt in my view.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:32 AM

One thing is for certain Mohammed, neither England, nor Britain was solely responsible for the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
(Not the point... This is about 'Britain')

Doesn't matter how much you twist and turn the following remains true:
"..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims"
(You keep on saying this, but you have produced no direct reference to anywhere to support your contention)

And you think there are no slaves, still, in Britain, Teribus?

Back in Camberwick Green again, are you, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:45 AM

I'm interested, Mohammed, in details of any slaves still in Britain. I am aware that there have neen instances of Middle Eastern families being found to have Sub-Saharan people working for them in a way that suggests slavery and that there have been cases of Asian and East European girls being brought into the country under false pretences and then forced to work as sex slaves - mostly, it seems, by their own countrymen. Is this what you are talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:53 AM

Dave, Teribus didn`t hesitate when he stated that Irish ports were used by the Corsairs, he catigated McGrath for his lack of knowledge of naval history, he T having studied the subject.
Well Dave he was looking for 17 minutes to correct that lie that was a couple of days ago, no word yet from the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 10:27 AM

jacqui - you can read the reports about human trafficking, forced labour, domestic 'servants' etc prepared for Anti-Slavery International here

This is the best resource I know for such information. If you look through the website there are campaigns to support if you feel so inclined. In my opinion this would be a much better way of using one's time than carping on about who were the worst slavers in history and whether we should be apologising for them now.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

I think I am either reading a completely different thread or I have lost my marbles.

Who said, quite correctly, Thanks very much for the correction you are right the Port "raided" was Baltimore, not Skibereen. ?

And who said, completely incorrectly, ... and also your statement that an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. ?

Or did I just dream them both?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 11:25 AM

Thanks Les - I would agree with you. That site makes for interesting reading.

Empty words from a political leader who, IMHO, has been shown to be a sham, really are a nothing. Maybe he should be apologising for what seems to be a do nothing attitude by the Government in respect of what is happening TODAY. Mind you, that would mean admitting that his own government was falling down on the job, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:03 PM

Good link, les.

Thats exactly the point. If Blair is such a bleeding heart, Britain should actively support Fair Trade that does not use children as slave labour. Instead he covers his inaction by apologizing for something that happened in the past. Big deal!

Empty words from an empty politician.

If he is truly sorry, then the apology should be backed with meaningful action.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:06 PM

At last - two bits of common sense. Thanks girls:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:41 AM

Subject: RE: Songs for white slaves?
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 15 Sep 03 - 05:36 PM

And here's what a Baltimore (Cork) website says about it: "The allegation is sometimes made that the raid may even have been organised by the O'Driscolls, who did not care to see their lands being taken over by English settlers - You'd never know!"

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:45 AM

The English were in sole control of Ireland and whatever went on around the Irish coast was England`s responsibility, fair play to the O`Driscolls if they had a hand in whatever went on, after all they were no different from the people of any country in the world that resisted the usurper.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:46 AM

They were just settlers Ard.
Surely they did not deserve that.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Snuffy
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 09:07 AM

How is sending Irish into slavery in the Caribbean any different from sending English into slavery in North Africa?

Neither can be justified

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:02 AM

Keih how much sympathy had those "settlers" for the original inhabitants, when they came in behind their armies and banished the native Irish to their fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:26 AM

There are Irish and english settlers in every corner of the globe.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:27 AM

The globe has got 'corners'?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:31 AM

Keith whereever the Irish settled they did not bring an army along, to Europe, Africa, Aisa, America or Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:32 AM

Every polyhedron has vertices Les.
A tetrahedron has 4, a cuboid 8.
A sphere has an infinite number.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:34 AM

Surprising that the corsairs carried them off so easily with their army to protect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:45 AM

But wouldn't that mean there's nothing but corners. That means there's no point in calling them corners. I've never heard of anyone talking about the corners of an orange, or of a football. Mind you, they do have corner kicks, don't they? Hmm! Anyway, you said every corner and there's not an infinite number of people yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 01:10 PM

Keith, They had the Irish subdued and complacency by the English led to the Corsairs easy pickings.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 01:58 PM

The Corsairs took defenceless people from their coastal settlements on the ccoast of England and other European countries too. Were they all complacent?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:19 PM

If the Provo's had been about then they wouldn't have got away with stealing our fine young and women with good child bearing hips.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: greg stephens
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:22 PM

There has been a lot of discussion and speculation about what happened in Baltimore. Now, let me bring you the latest facts(from one who has played many gigs in Baltimore, and the adjoining islands Shirkin and Cape Clear). Firstly, there still an inordinate number of O'Driscolls around. Secondly, there are still an inordinate number of Brit settlers about. But I have to say I have seen no sign of corsairs from the Barbary coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:52 PM

Never rated the corsairs much anyway - They were only a posh cortina. The pointed from was pretty ugly as well.

Subject: Lyr Add: The Slave Chase
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:15 PM

Here's a song that seems relevant in this thread:

The Slave Chase" (circa 1845+)

"Set ev'ry stitch of canvas to woo the fresh'ning wind,
Our bowsprit points to Cuba, the coast lies far behind;
Fill'd to the hatches full, my boys, across the seas we go,
There's twice five hundred Niggers in the stifling hold below,
A Sail! what say you boys? well, let him give us chase!
A British Man-of-War, you say­­ well, let his try the race.
There's not a swifter vessel ever floated on the waves,
Than our tidy little Schooner, well ballasted with slaves."

Now stronger yet, and stronger still, came down the fiery breeze,
And even fast and faster sped the strange ship on the seas;
Flinging each rude and bursting surge in glitt'ring haloes back,
And bearing high to heav'n aloft, the English Union Jack.
"Now curses on that Ensign," the Slaving Captain said,
"There's little luck for Slavers when the English bunting's spread.
But pack on sail, and trim the ship, before we'll captur'd be,
We'll have the Niggers up, my boys, and heave them in the sea."

Hoarse was the Slaving Captain's voice, and deep the oath he swore,
"Haul down the flag, that shot's enough, we don't want any more."
Along side dash'd a cruiser's boat, to board and seize the prize;
Hark! to that rattling British cheer, 'tis ringing to the skies.
"Up, up, with the Negroes speed'ly, up, up, and give them breath.
Clear out the hold from stem to stern, that noisome den is death.
And run aloft St. George's Cross, all wanton let it wave,
The token proud that under it there never treads a slave.

Words by Angus B. Reach, Esq. Composed by Henry Russell [1812-1900]
for his new extravaganza "Negro Life"

And here is the tune that goes with it. This comes from this site of Henry Russell's music. (And I've adjusted the text a little, in line with The Common Muse (Penguin 1965) where I found this first, to make it scan better.

One interesting thing about this song is that it rather undermines the common assertion that the idea that the word "nigger" is offensive is a modern one, and nobody took offence if it in the old days. Here we have the slavers using the word freely, but the anti-slavers are shown avoiding its use. And that's around 1845.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:31 AM

Nice to know that the PIRA boys would have saved the settlers Divis.
Those poor women and girls taken for sexual slavery.
The value of the men slaves about that of an onion, they would be chained to an oar as long as they could row and then disposed of.
Little boys commanded the best price. They would be buggered through their childhood and then the galley oar awaited.
But fair play to anyone who had a hand in it as Ard said.
They were only English after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:18 AM

Oh well it now sems as though Ard has accepted that Barbary Corsairs used Irish ports to store and reprovision, examples having been furnished by Barnacle Bill and others. Doesn't matter a toss who they were colluding with ashore, my original statement was that they used Irish ports, nothing more, nothing less. But fret not Ard when I get back to the UK I will provide you with chapter and verse on it from "Sovereign of the Seas". It would also appear that you now do believe that an Irishman by the name of O'Driscoll did in fact lead the Corsairs into Baltimore, or at least that you can find no fault in him having done so. But just to set the matter straight Ard - I certainly never mentioned anything about it - Did I?

With regard to attempts made to free those taken off as slaves, lets give a big round of applause to one Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector, who sent Admiral Blake south in 1655 to "negotiate" release of captives. Blake pressed home his attack on ships belonging to the Corsairs off one port so successfully and persistantly that when he arrived off Algiers they immediately released over 3000 prisoners without a fight.

Such punitive expeditions were occasionally mounted but became more common during the early 19th Century. Those expeditions were mounted by the US Navy and by the Royal Navy.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:55 PM

The preoccupation in this thread some people seem to have with pointing fingers of accusation at various countries seems to miss the point badly. It fels like a historical equivalent of football hooliganism.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:33 PM

The anti British chosen thread title caused this polarised debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:51 PM

The title was due to it being a British politician making statements, concerning an anniversery of a British law, so Britian in the title was entirely reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:00 PM

OK but those who do not consider that britain has a shameful history in relation to slavery will be bound to dispute it; and those who are anti british anyway will seize on it as a new club to beat us with.
That is what seems to have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame at slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:10 PM

"Shame at" rather than "shame of" would have been clearer, and less likely to provoke kneejerk responses. "Tony Blair expresses shame at Britain's role in the slave trade" would have been even clearer, but a bit long.

But this rather petulant hypersensitivity to imagined or real insult is the very thing "the British" have traditionally prided themselves for disdaining, and with some justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:36 PM

It is not "petulent hypersensitivity" to say that, yes , British merchants traded slaves but on the plus side...
The argument was well put that Britain has much to take pride in over the abolition of the Atlantic trade.
The thread title invited such a response.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:19 PM

Did anyone watch 'Amistad' on BBC1 last night? I'm sure most here have seen it, & if not I heartily recommend it. I can watch it time & time again...had it on Video at one time, dunno what happened to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:52 PM

I don't think anyone was denying that the British did a good job trying to close down the trade. That's something to be grateful for - but it doesnm't wipe out the centuries of slave trading and slave driving tat preceded and helped motivate it. Hence Tony Blair's statement.

John Newton got it right:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:43 AM

Newton was a reformed slave trader.
Most britons were not slave traders.
Britain was one of many nations with merchants who traded.
Why single out one country?
If anyone wanted to start a thread about the abolition of slavery however, Britain should indeed be singled out for glory as a nation that did more than any other.
I will not hold my breath for an anonymous guest to do that though.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:32 AM

Bunnahabhain, stated that -"The (thread) title was due to it being a British politician making statements, concerning an anniversery of a British law, so Britian in the title was entirely reasonable."

MGOH's "Shame at"/"Shame of" matters neither here nor there. Specifically looking at Britain's role in the slave trade it would appear that the social conscience of the United Kingdom relating to the revulsion of the slave trade was aroused long before any of the other participants in that trade. Acting on a popular movement calling for the universal abolition of the slave trade successive British Governments of the day enacted legislation to erradicate the trade and tasked the nation's armed forces, predominantly the Royal Navy, to enforce that legislation. The Prime Minister's apology or statement of regret is therefore superfluous.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 02:02 PM

Why single out one counry? Because that country was singled out by itself - the anniversary involved is the date at which a British Government outlawed the slave trade.

That anniversary is indeed something to be proud of - but it only happened because it was recognised that the slave trade was something to be ashamed of, and that Britain had up to that tiem palyed a major role in it.

Insofar as it is possible for people to be proud of Britain for its role in the abolition of the slave trade and the fight against slavery, it is right for them to be ashamed of what Britain did in developing and carrying out the Atlantic Slave Trade.

I do not think that the people who fought to end the slave trade would disagree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:39 PM

CEASE, Wilberforce, to urge thy generous aim!
Thy Country knows the sin, and stands the shame!
The Preacher, Poet, Senator in vain
Has rattled in her sight the Negro's chain

There lines were written by Anna Letitia Barbauld in her 'Epistle to William Wilberforce, Esq. On the Rejection of the Bill for Abolishing the Slave Trade' (this was the 1791 Bill, which was rejected by Parliament). That was a more appropriate time to be talking about shame, and perhaps compensation to those enslaved. In fact compensation was paid - to the slave owners! This, of course, was 1834 when the slaves were supposed to be freed, but in fact they were not free until 1838 when the owners had been paid off.

When Britain was suppressing the Slave Trade, recaptured slaves and some repatriated ones were taken to Freetown, Sierra Leone to be given their freedom. The first Governor (1808) was Thomas Perronet Thompson, another Hull man and a friend of Wilberforce. Thompson was later MP for Hull and a strong campaigner for reform.

Freetown is another of Hull's Twin Towns.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:00 PM

Don't forget, our Les, that Freetown has been described as 'a septic spot on the arse of Africa', though I can't remember by who. Perhaps thats another reason for the twinning, in light of some of the opinions on Hull in various media! *G*

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:45 PM

Well. Paul, Africa has got plenty of such spots and Freetown has been up there with them! Perhaps one problem was of Britain's making, returning slaves from different areas and leaving them in one spot. They've had freed slaves from Nova Scotia, repatriated creoles from Jamaica and groups of freed slaves from the Atlantic Slave Trade, released by the Royal Navy. Sierra Leone, in common with many of the 'nations' of Africa was given borders that did not necessarily relate to existing tribal groups.

Freetown's other 'sister city' is New Haven, Connecticut.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:59 PM

Yes, that seems to be the problem across much of Africa, doesnt it, Liberia suffering from exactly the problem you state, & other artificially drawn borders in the Colonial period paying no attention to traditional tribal areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:20 AM

I actually agree with you when you say,

"The Prime Minister's apology or statement of regret is therefore superfluous."

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 09:10 AM

200 !!