Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Two Years At Sea Freeing Slaves
17 Answers
http://
How is it that we never get to hear of the good things that Britain did in their fight against slavery after they banned it back in 1807?
/// 'The international treaties gave Britain the role of international policeman, and she used the Royal Navy to suppress the trade in the Americas, Middle East and India. Naval squadrons were set up to patrol the coast of West Africa and the Caribbean looking for illegal slavers.' ///
How is it that we never get to hear of the good things that Britain did in their fight against slavery after they banned it back in 1807?
/// 'The international treaties gave Britain the role of international policeman, and she used the Royal Navy to suppress the trade in the Americas, Middle East and India. Naval squadrons were set up to patrol the coast of West Africa and the Caribbean looking for illegal slavers.' ///
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Whats with this "we"? I was taught in school about figures like William Wilberforce; In later history lessons we were taught about the British Empire, the importance of the Royal Navy, and Britains role in the abolition of the slave trade.
We were also taught about philosophers back in England (Locke) who eloquently argued against slavery in our colonies when it was unacceptable at home. We were also told about the formation of the West Africa Squadron, dedicated to interdicting the slave trade, and the 2 principal acts of Parliament in 1807 which abolished the slave trade ( but not slavery itself) and later in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act.
But in amongst that, we also learned about the darker side of Britains involvement in the slave trade and the triangular trade route, which enriched many individuals and contributed to the prosperity and development of Bristol and Liverpool.
What history should teach us is that nothing and no-one is an unalloyed good or bad influence, what is important is arriving at a conclusion based on the balance of good and bad actions.
HMS Black Joke was a famous brig in its own right, single -handedly doing more to free slaves in transit than the rest of the squadron put together.
We were also taught about philosophers back in England (Locke) who eloquently argued against slavery in our colonies when it was unacceptable at home. We were also told about the formation of the West Africa Squadron, dedicated to interdicting the slave trade, and the 2 principal acts of Parliament in 1807 which abolished the slave trade ( but not slavery itself) and later in 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act.
But in amongst that, we also learned about the darker side of Britains involvement in the slave trade and the triangular trade route, which enriched many individuals and contributed to the prosperity and development of Bristol and Liverpool.
What history should teach us is that nothing and no-one is an unalloyed good or bad influence, what is important is arriving at a conclusion based on the balance of good and bad actions.
HMS Black Joke was a famous brig in its own right, single -handedly doing more to free slaves in transit than the rest of the squadron put together.
LazyGun
I take it you wasn't taught these facts yesterday, because I think you will find that things have altered from when the majority of Britons were proud to be British, celebrated Empire Day, and were more patriotic than they are today, when we only get to know the negative things about being British.
I take it you wasn't taught these facts yesterday, because I think you will find that things have altered from when the majority of Britons were proud to be British, celebrated Empire Day, and were more patriotic than they are today, when we only get to know the negative things about being British.
I have never celebrated Empire Day.Does that make me unpatriotic?
As for Patriotism itself - I am not quite sure what definition you are working to. For myself, I think Patriotism is too often the unqualified enthusiastic endorsement of everything ones country does. That is irrational. I think Mark Twain had it about right, in his musings on patriotism;
"
Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest"
He was even more vitriolically cynical about Patriotism here;
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"- with his mouth."
As for Patriotism itself - I am not quite sure what definition you are working to. For myself, I think Patriotism is too often the unqualified enthusiastic endorsement of everything ones country does. That is irrational. I think Mark Twain had it about right, in his musings on patriotism;
"
Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest"
He was even more vitriolically cynical about Patriotism here;
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"- with his mouth."
black_cat51
/// i don't really understand your reply. You may be very clever, but not so clever at making people understand what you mean. How is it being in a national paper not giving it prominence? ///
You are taking what I put far too literally.
I hardly think that one sole report in a national newspaper makes up for all the times we do not get to know of such things.
/// i don't really understand your reply. You may be very clever, but not so clever at making people understand what you mean. How is it being in a national paper not giving it prominence? ///
You are taking what I put far too literally.
I hardly think that one sole report in a national newspaper makes up for all the times we do not get to know of such things.
LazyGun
/// I think Mark Twain had it about right, in his musings on patriotism; ///
/// Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest" ///
Oh dear how many times are we to see this quote from those who think it is wrong to be patriotic?
Especially coming from a left-wing, pacifist, American, born almost 179 years ago, who seemed to switch his beliefs according to how he felt.
Twain wrote this in 1870, regarding the native American.
/// His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though you bankrupt yourself trying. The scum of the earth! ///
Do you think also that Mark Twain had it about right, in his musings on race?
/// I think Mark Twain had it about right, in his musings on patriotism; ///
/// Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest" ///
Oh dear how many times are we to see this quote from those who think it is wrong to be patriotic?
Especially coming from a left-wing, pacifist, American, born almost 179 years ago, who seemed to switch his beliefs according to how he felt.
Twain wrote this in 1870, regarding the native American.
/// His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though you bankrupt yourself trying. The scum of the earth! ///
Do you think also that Mark Twain had it about right, in his musings on race?
sp1814
/// I go into a house, burgle it, rape the owner, kill the children...and after that, I prevent others from doing the same, because I've realised the errors of my ways. ///
I stand outside a house, the owner comes out to offer me goods for a price, afterwards when I see what harm it has done to the other occupants of that house, I can't possibly return those goods, but at least I can then stop others from doing the same.
Never heard of the prodigal son?
/// I go into a house, burgle it, rape the owner, kill the children...and after that, I prevent others from doing the same, because I've realised the errors of my ways. ///
I stand outside a house, the owner comes out to offer me goods for a price, afterwards when I see what harm it has done to the other occupants of that house, I can't possibly return those goods, but at least I can then stop others from doing the same.
Never heard of the prodigal son?
Slavery wasn't a British government policy, so you can't tar everybody with that brush sp. Slavers from North Africa used to raid the less populated coasts of Europe for their stock in trade, long before the tranatlantic slave trade came into being. So far no apologies issued by the governments of Morocco, Algeria, or Tunisia.
"Especially coming from a left-wing, pacifist, American, born almost 179 years ago, who seemed to switch his beliefs according to how he felt."
You say that like its a bad thing. What is so bad about being an American, or being a pacificist, or even - horror of horrors - left wing ( although it would be more accurate to describe him as an anti-imperialist) ? I rate him all the more highly precisely because of his anti-war and anti-imperialist stance. And what is wrong with views changing over time or with experience? That is a good thing, not a bad one - only the most zealous or close minded of individuals never changes their opinion.
He even became increasingly revolutionary, and supported the idea of the violent removal of the Tsar of Russia - so not always a pacifist either.
As to him being from 179 years ago - nowt wrong with using historical figures as a reference, provided you bear in mind that they - and in consequence their views- will be a product of their times. We are all a product of our times, our upbringing, our education and our life experience. The fact that he gained all of those things a few hundred years ago does not automatically render everything he said or wrote irrelevant.
So, some of their views might become redundant as society progresses and evolves, but equally others may well remain perfectly apposite.And you know, as people experience life, their views may well change. For a while he was an ardent imperialist, but later came to abhor imperialism.
It does appear though that Clemens had a particular blind spot when it comes to indigenous peoples, such as the native americans, or the aboriginals in Australia. He did view them as being sub-human, certainly in comparison to the "civilised" white man. I think above all else though he valued civilised behaviour and thought, rather than having an issue about skin colour.
Certainly he was an abolitionist, and favoured the rights of the oppressed over those doing the oppressing.
None of these things though devalue his comments about patriotism.
I notice you do not offer your own definition of patriotism, which is telling.
You say that like its a bad thing. What is so bad about being an American, or being a pacificist, or even - horror of horrors - left wing ( although it would be more accurate to describe him as an anti-imperialist) ? I rate him all the more highly precisely because of his anti-war and anti-imperialist stance. And what is wrong with views changing over time or with experience? That is a good thing, not a bad one - only the most zealous or close minded of individuals never changes their opinion.
He even became increasingly revolutionary, and supported the idea of the violent removal of the Tsar of Russia - so not always a pacifist either.
As to him being from 179 years ago - nowt wrong with using historical figures as a reference, provided you bear in mind that they - and in consequence their views- will be a product of their times. We are all a product of our times, our upbringing, our education and our life experience. The fact that he gained all of those things a few hundred years ago does not automatically render everything he said or wrote irrelevant.
So, some of their views might become redundant as society progresses and evolves, but equally others may well remain perfectly apposite.And you know, as people experience life, their views may well change. For a while he was an ardent imperialist, but later came to abhor imperialism.
It does appear though that Clemens had a particular blind spot when it comes to indigenous peoples, such as the native americans, or the aboriginals in Australia. He did view them as being sub-human, certainly in comparison to the "civilised" white man. I think above all else though he valued civilised behaviour and thought, rather than having an issue about skin colour.
Certainly he was an abolitionist, and favoured the rights of the oppressed over those doing the oppressing.
None of these things though devalue his comments about patriotism.
I notice you do not offer your own definition of patriotism, which is telling.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.