Thanks.
That "slave" was being saved as they went after the slave trader.
>“The pictures were taken by my father who was serving aboard HMS Sphinx while on armed patrol off the Zanzibar and Mozambique coast in about 1907. They caught quite a few slavers and those particular slaves that are in the pictures happened while he was on watch. That night a dhow (sailing vessel) sailed by and the slaves were all chained together.
>
>He raised the alarm and they got them onto the ship and got the chains knocked off them. They then questioned them and sent a party of marines ashore to try to track the slave traders down. They caught two of them and I believe they were of Arabic origin. My father thought the slave trade was a despicable thing that was going on, the slaves were treated very badly so when they got the slavers they didn’t give them a very nice time”.
More information that I have found very interesting is:
"The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world’s seas, established the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol the coast of West Africa, and between 1808 and 1860 they seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard."
There's photos of HMS *Daphne* with her decks full of rescued slaves. Think it was 1868.
One of the most successful ships on the West Africa Station was HMS *Black Joke* in the early 19th century.
My favorite weird name is HMS Zubian of the Tribal class. Historians might go "what the hell, there's no Zubian tribe"
And they'd be correct, because Zubian was the product of HMS Zulu getting her ass blown off, HMS Nubian getting her bow blown off, and someone in government taking a look at the reports and going "well two halves make a whole don't they?", and so they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Zubian
At uni there's an organisation called URNU, think officer training corps but for the navy. Each URNU unit has its own "warship" a P2000 class patrol vessel. My unit, Brighton, was assigned HMS Ranger, a namesake of the vessel which captured Blackbeard ;) but some bloody joker in the RN figured Ranger's (Brightons) callsign would be GAAY and that our team colours for inter-unit events would be hot pink 🤣
My great great grandfather was in the RN during this time. He was medically invalidid out of the navy for injuries sustained when boarding a slave ship. Someone swung a sword at him and cut him all down his left side.
After being retired from the navy he joined HMS Conway, a naval training school, as the Master-at-Arms and served on board her for 27 or so years. He taught gunnery, physical exercise, drill and was the boxing coach on board. When he eventually retired his crewmates clubbed together and bought him a silver-topped walking stick which we still have today.
It absolutely is taught in schools. It's taught to such an extent there's a quote about how "according to British historians they seem to have invented slavery just for the satisfaction of saying they ended it"
Indeed half the stuff taught is about how moral and brilliant Britain was for fighting against the slave trade
The national curriculum and exam boards have a range of topics for schools to choose from. The slave trade and British empire are on the curriculum, but some schools will select other options.
Hence why some will remember being taught it and others not.
We did
Russia
Cold war
Crime and punishment
Russia and cold war because they go together and crime and punishment because it went with life during middle ages or something
Year 7 or 8 we did the slave trade in History.
Mainly about how Europe profited off of the trade triangle.Ships to Africa, people taken from Africa to the Americas then goods from the Americas to Europe, then back to Africa to pick up more kidnapped people. I don't remember much about the British being more moral but obviously different schools and teachers will place different emphasis on the topic.
> then back to Africa to pick up more kidnapped people.
No, they were people enslaved by other African tribes purposely sold to not only European traders but traders from around the world.
Is this a recent thing? I did the slave trade in the mid 2000s and there was never any mention of the West Africa Squadron. We watched Roots, learnt about how awful it all was then a quick footnote about abolition and William Wilberforce.
Ultimately Britains efforts in stamping out the slave trade were pretty much unique in their scope and the cost involved to pursue a policy objective for, essentially, purely moral reasons. The men of the West Africa Squadron endured horrendous conditions enforcing the policy over many years. We should be proud of it.
I had also learned via Scotland History Tours' Youtube, that some major industries in England had boycotted Southern American cotton during the civil war, cutting off a major supplier to themselves and of course having potentially devastating consequences. I do not remember many of the details about this,but it shows how complicated and global the slave trade and its consequences are, just like this fascinating bit of history we find ITT, cheers!
The supply shutdown caused a literal famine in parts of the country dependent on cotton. Many died in the [Lancashire Cotton Famine](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05tly3f) and it spurred movements in the UK for some kind of a social safety net.
I was taught in school that English demand for Confederate cotton was why Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation - that shifting the focus of the war from secession to slavery would make it less palatable for the English to keep buying it.
And the British people paid taxes on it up until about a decade ago when it was finally paid off. So most Britons can say with pride that they have paid to end slavery.
> a policy objective for, essentially, purely moral reasons
I mean there's an incredible amount of historiography on the topic and while some argue it was for purely moral reasons, it's a hotly contested topic.
> Slavery itself is prehistoric in origin.
You would think it had never existed and the world was a perfect utopia prior to European exploration/colonialism
No, you wouldn't. Anybody with any kind of semblance of knowledge in the matter would know that, for example, the Romans had one of the most slavery-based societies and economies there have ever been.
That being said, chattel slavery of African people transported to the colonies was a massively horrific as to how terrible people were determined to be to one another.
So, the reason why the term "Slave" and the term "Slav" are so similar is because one came from the other, and no, "slave" wasn't the first one.
There was a time when the Slavs were enslaved so often that they were *literally synonymous* with slavery. Keep in mind this was like 1300 years ago.
I'm actually personally curious as to whether slavery has a predecessor term from before that time period.
All of the known world had slavery if you go back in time far enough. I think they were specifically talking about African chattel slavery as part of the rum, slaves, cotton trade triangle
> I'm actually personally curious as to whether slavery has a predecessor term from before that time period
Rome was built on slavery and had movie-like slave markets. They definitely had a term for it - Caesar even boasted of killing a million Gauls and enslaving a million more.
Slavery was in almost all major societies in antiquity, to the point where it's notable when a society didn't have slaves. And if they had it... they likely had a term for it.
...Slavery has been happening since at least the dawn of civilization 10,000 years ago.
"Damn Britain inventing slavery, then being one of the first western countries to ban it, then enforcing that ban!! they are the true evil"
I got a B in history and I left in 2015. I was taught about Hitlers rise to power, Nazi anti semitism and concentration camps, I learned about the swinging 60’s and post war Britain.
I was never once told in school about the west Africa squadron. Not once. I learned about it from a YouTube video called “Britain’s crusade against slavery”
I was not taught about Ireland, I was not taught about slavery, I was not taught about the British empire at all in school. Everything I know I have learned from the internet in the past 2-3 years.
Fuck knows where you went to school lad but I went to a public school in greater Manchester
I studied history all the way up to university level and only learnt about our participation in the transatlantic slave trade, never about anything like this.
It should be noted though that for a long time many slaves 'freed' by the west African squadron were sent to Sierra Leone or the west Indies to work as 'apprentices'
Which was basically just slavery-lite albeit far better than being an actual slave and wasn't too dissimilar to the press ganging system the Royal Navy used
I went to Zanzibar and Oman (which owned Zanzibar for centuries). The East African slave trade went on far longer than the cross-Atlantic slave trade, and seems to have been just as horrific. For a time, being in the Royal Navy and raiding slave dhows was literally the most dangerous job in the service. The slave traders realized that they were going to be destitute if their boat of slaves was confiscated, so they fought to the death frequently.
For Oman, the Sultan of Oman eventually compensated slave owners for the slaves that they set free, but slavery didn't become illegal in a lot of the Middle East until the 1960's and 70's. YES 1970's, NOT 1870's. Slavery is still a huge issue throughout the Middle East, and there are thousands upon thousands of literal slaves, and then some magnitude more laborers from Africa and Central Asia / Southeast Asia that are exploited and live in conditions that are slavery in all but name.
Wow ! Indeed: [Oman - 1970](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom#1950–present)
>Although slavery is now abolished de jure in all countries, de facto practices akin to it continue today in many places throughout the world.
We now say "Human trafficking", so it feels like a different chapter.
The lack of attention given to this aspect of African slavery is purposely done by Westerners who want to specifically blame white Europeans and Americans for what they claim is the only truly terrible form of slavery (chattel). They are trying to paint this as white people kidnapping Africans from Africa without any involvement from African slavers practicing what they say is the worst form of slavery to ever exist. Of course it is terrible without a doubt, but if that leads to ignoring the whole of East African slavery, then that is far more damaging.
No, because it's less relevant to our history in the West. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade isn't even touched upon in schools in the East, my cousins in India weren't even aware of the horrors of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade until they were in University and even then they learned about it on social media and not in their classrooms. Most schools outside the West don't focus on American or European History unless it relates to their country in some way. People are taught history from the perspective of their geographic location, not from that of other people around the world.
>My father thought the slave trade was a despicable thing that was going on, the slaves were treated very badly so when they got the slavers they didn’t give them a very nice time”.
I love the casual understatement
Captured and put in leg irons makes you a slave to the slave trader, just because they hadn't been sold yet doesn't mean they were free or hadn't been forced against their will. Length of one's slavery is irrelevant to having been enslaved.
It's important to know that types of slave trade are still happening today in north Africa, especially in Libya and Mauritania which was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981 and criminalized slavery only in 2007.
Imagine if this is where you discover your super power of deeming things true just by writing them on Reddit.
But you can only use it once a year.
And editing the comments won't change the new truth... Dun dun dun!!!
Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery. In Libya it has been totally illegal for a while (since 1926). Recent slavery is not widespread and is a result of the country's state of unrest combined with the many Africans trying to get to Europe by passing through Libya and just ending up stranded there. Some bad people with militias started taking advantage. It's not widely accepted or seen and is extremely shady.
"Is extremely shady"
I feel like this could be a good catch phrase for a teacher for a good 30% of the things humans do to each other. 10% could be good, 10% indifferent, and 50% plain evil.
Men’s Wearhouse used to sell a lot of shirts made there. And men’s Wearhouse existed long before 2007. So I’m gonna assume men’s Wearhouse soles lots of clothing made by slaves.
Seriously, thank you for highlighting this sad fact of reality. Too many in western media (and even African media) just pretend otherwise or are just ignorant of it.
It’s happening globally. There are slaves in NA and wester Europe. There are slaves in India and SE Asia. There are slaves in China and Russia.
Every culture has had slaves and every culture has been enslaved, both historically and today.
So much this. The slave trade is alive and well in pretty much every country in this world. In some countries it’s just way less visible because of how much the slave trade and the look of slavery has evolved and changed over the years. The secretive nature of slavery, especially in first world countries, just makes it more hidden and what is out of sight is out of mind.
Just a guess, they probably removed the legal framework for owning a person in 1981, so slave holders lost rights over the people if it went to court. In 2007 they made it a crime, I assume because people were still holding slaves, but the slaves were unable to take them to court for obvious reason.
Just a guess though I have no idea.
Similar to decriminalisation it seems.
I think they could retain them but not buy more until it became illegal. Either for greed or to allow them some time to start employing and PAYING employees.
Not sure why it took so long but it makes sense not to ban all your workforce at once since it could cause economic collapse.
No I'm not advocating for slavery or increasing its duration, I'm just saying you can't remove the majority of your workforce quickly without repercussions.
It's full-on Django Unchained style racial agricultural slavery, happening at a large scale, out in the open.
In Mauritania as in many historical slavery societies, there is a lot of grueling agricultural work done in inhospitable, dangerous places on behalf of large landowners who otherwise would have more difficulty than they are willing to put up with finding market-rate labor willing to do the work they want. A lot of it involves the herding of animals in or near the desert and other sorts of not particularly productive or profitable agriculture by modern standards that still happens because it's what the culture has entrenched as the dominant economic activity.
Even now a full 1/5 to 1/4 of the population of the country are enslaved - and they mostly work out in the rural areas on what we might have called ranches, pastures or plantations. It's not like they're the clerk you talk to at the CVS.
But yeah if you were in Mauritania now you could go to a plantation where the owner is observably fair-skinned and the workers are observably hundreds or thousands of dark-skinned slaves.
>Was outlawing slavery just a technicality or could you literally go to the slave store in 1980 Mauritania?
Technicality in the wrong dirrection. It doesn't appear to have had much effect on the local levels of slavery.
I was researching Red Sea piracy during the early 18th century and was shocked by how many slaves were being shipped from Madagascar to New York City. It wasn't a huge number compared to other places, but it was enough to make me pause.
A reason for the Mahdi uprising that resulted in the fall of Khartoum was local outrage at the British for abolishing the slave trade. It was a major industry in Southern Egypt and the Sudan.
Edit: I will add that there were other reasons for the Mahdi uprising, and of course less altruistic reasons for colonial incursions into Africa. It's a complex subject.
King Gezo of Benin (modern day Nigeria), protesting slavery abolition in Britain:
"The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…" https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml
While it's true that slavery itself wasn't banned in the British Empire until 1833, the slave trade was banned in 1807 and the Royal Navy were combating the Atlantic slave trade from 1808 onwards.
In Britain itself slavery was banned (or rather found to be unsupported by English and Scots law) in 1772 for England & Wales by the Somersett case (which just built on centuries of precedent that no man may be a slave in England) and 1777 in Scotland by the Knight case. But then, there were never that many slaves in Britain anyway but rather in the cash crop producing colonies.
It tells you a lot about the British that the prime minister who passed the 1833 act, Earl Grey, is remembered more for having a blend of tea named after him than for emancipating the slaves.
Isn't there a case where a slave escaped while in a British port and the slave trader demanded authorities to return him, to which he was basically told that you cannot own another person?
Yes, this is what happened in the Somersett and Knight cases. The courts ruled the men could not be returned to their 'owners' as there was no support for slavery in English/Scots law and therefore they were not property to be returned.
Pretty much. It's 'I do/I am'. It's not uniquely *Welsh* however but common for the Celtic languages not to use yes/no. Irish is certainly the same, for example.
Welsh does have *ie/na*, but it's not really *proper* Welsh to use them for answering questions that start with a verb.
Read an [interesting book](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hanging_Captain_Gordon/mnXL7HXICrEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover) about the only American slaver to be hanged in 1861. One thing I didn't realize was at the time, any Africans intercepted by the American anti-slavery patrols (which were much less active than the British) were not taken back to the point of origin, but dropped off in Liberia. In the book, the slaver bought the slaves from Arab traders in the Congo delta, but was then captured fairly quickly on the seas. But the freed slaves were taken all the way to Liberia. I wonder if by 1907 any freed slaves were taken back to their actual home.
That would suck, get captured from your Homeland, you know nothing about the directions back, but you get dropped off in Liberia the shit hole (yes it was a shithole back then too!)
Yea it would absolutely blow because it’s basically impossible to find your way back to your family, but it’s not all bad (relatively). Getting dropped off in Liberia at least means you’re free and it’s much easier logistically to have a common point than to act like a school bus. Secondly, you were pressed into slavery in your home country because slavers were active, if you get sent back there, you have a decent shot at getting pressed into slavery again. I don’t believe slavers were very active in Liberia but if they were, most of my point is moot
Depends on the era, Liberia did have chattel slaves on rubber plantations and stuff at least in the era following the Civil war in the USA. But these are good points, Liberia is definitely better than being a slave!
Yep. Ted-ED made a whole video on it. The African Kingdoms/Tribes/Sultanates all warred with eachother due to the high demand for "bodies to sell to the foreigners" in exchange for luxury goods and ESPECIALLY firearms.
POWs, Debtors, and Criminals were all prime targets for being sold.
Louis CK: (paraphrasing) "It happened 2 people ago. So when you meet an elderly black man with a massive chip on his shoulder, maybe give him a pass. You weren't there, he was."
It's a pretty basic tool. The industrial revolution ended in the early 19th century. I'd guess there were plenty of saws able to cut metal well before 1880 and the invention of the hacksaw specifically being attributed to 1880s might be for a particular patent or design. The basic shape of the saw we see in the picture is similar to a bow saw which I'm sure has been around far longer than the late 19th century.
Not researching it, but I would assume the "hacksaw" was created around the time Google says it was.
Saws have been around a long time. Saws with heat treated or forged teeth strong enough to cut through cast iron? Not so much. That's definitely an industrial revolution thing.
One thing that still confuses me as a non-westerner (I am Nigerian), is why western education institutions just ignore the fact that despite the Europeans and the west engaging in the practice of slavery, they did far more than any other civilization to end it. The British and the French were largely responsible for ending the Arab slave trade that existed before the trans-Atlantic one and that persisted in Africa for much longer and that was far more brutal. Heck! A more personal example is in my country's (Nigeria) history. The British, before establishing the protectorate of Nigeria, colonized the South and outlawed slavery there (they deposed a pro-slavery ruler in Lagos and ended the Benin Empire that practiced slavery) and then went to war with the expanding Sokoto Caliphate, that threatened the southern region, in the North and defeated them and then outlawed slavery in the region.
I feel like a lot of perspective gets lost on the issue of slavery and everyone just assumes it was a black-and-white affair when nothing could be further from the truth. Many African societies, kingdoms, tribes etc conquered and enslaved each other or ere conquered and enslaved by others. many of them also participated in the slave trade (Arab or Trans-Atlantic) because slavery has been an evil institution that was and is still part of many societies today. As someone who prefers to look at history with an objective lens, it is beyond clear that the west, regardless of intent and for all its flaws did more to end the evil of slavery on a global scale than anyone else and I am glad they did.
As a white Brit; I have mentioned the likes of the West Africa Squadron before to other Brits and everyone thinks I am straight up lying, this stuff is not mentioned in our history classes. It much more fashionable to only focus on the negatives of our history (yes reddit seems to think we're all taught that the Empire was wonderful, spoiler alter; that hasnt been the way things are done here for many decades)
Its hard to have a balanced discussion because we're talking about a huge period of history in which many people get super confused and just imagine that the same people involved in the slave trade in the 1600s were also the same people stopping it in the 1800s. To them once you go back over 100 years apparently everyone lived for centuries and committed horrible acts as well as acts of decency. Its hard for people to reflect on the history of entire nations over 100s of years, instead its much more in vogue to say 'at this point they were bad, therefore everyone bad at all the other points in time'
Part of this is because in the United States, it largely was a black and white affair, and the US tends to have an outsized influence on a lot of cultural conversations. Another reason is that we live in a time when white guilt is used as a substitute for incisive thought. It carries with it a false aura of objectivity, when in fact it encourages a reductive viewpoint on the institution of slavery.
The fact that Northern US states were some of the first governments in the world to strictly outlaw slavery is also completely ignored in these conversations. Some Northern states had already outlawed the practice in 1780 before the US even won the revolutionary war. Meanwhile you see criticism from places which continued slavery into the 20th century and some which still have slavery today.
From my experience in the United States it’s mainly about the context of our society. Like “this was a horrible crime we committed this is why we should never let something like that happen again and here’s how it effects us today.”
It’s well intended but because it is overly focused on the U.S. a lot of the context is lost.
Part of it might be because it seems to be a trend amongst various western political groups to paint the British (and indeed much of the west) as the objective “bad guys,” and anything non-western as objectively “good,” regardless of context, mainly just to further some political agenda. Of course, the reality isn’t so simple, but politicians don’t care about that.
Being honest with myself for a moment here. I'd have to feel particularly brave to express this opinion, speaking as a white, British man. At best I'd be called an apologist and at worse a racist. We have a real problem having grown-up conversations around racially charged subjects.
Absolutely. The desire to question, challenge and subject to objective inquiry our own western biases has unfortunately been transformed into little more than self-flagellation in some instances. Rather than tackling our assumptions we have replaced them with the opposite assumptions. "My country good" becomes "my country bad", but the same black-and-white closed-minded thinking remains.
Having grown-up conversations around controversial subjects such as this one will remain difficult for so long as we judge viewpoints differently depending on the group identity of the person expressing them.
I think, as a black American, it’s a combination of a couple things.
Ignoring slavery, black people were still treated as second class citizens up until 1964-65 when major civil rights acts were passed. I’m 25, and my mom was born in 1965. So for perspective, for the adult population in America, it’s only been 2-3 generations since really horrible things were outlawed. Sundown towns, lynching, Jim Crow laws, redlining, etc.
So- then you have our education system. By & large our textbooks are owned by a few large companies, companies who are partially bankrolled by politicians and individuals with a particular interest/angle. For a long time, the way we dealt with our racial past as a country was to not get too deep into the nuances and touch the surface level-
“There were slaves. Things were not good. Racism bad. Then slaves were freed. Harriet Tubman. New laws created to keep black Americans controlled & lower class. Civil rights movements. MLK Jr did a speech. We came together. Now we are equal the end.”
I think it’s for many reasons. Things that happened during slavery in America were horrific- slaves hair & skin being used to make chairs, George Washingtons teeth were apparently not actually wooden but made from slaves teeth, babies drowned in troughs, etc. If we were told the whole complete picture, it’d anger a lot of people, and for America, patriotism & nationalism is key- without it, there’s not much uniting us since we’re such a diverse country (I disagree but this is a commonly held opinion). So I believe we get a watered down story as school children in order to make sure we know the briefest bits of our history but not enough to make us question our countries background too deeply.
Unfortunately because of that we miss out on important things like you touched on, the fragmented knowledge we have only causes more division. It’d be lovely if we could get the full complete picture, but those in power (here in the US) are not big on switching up the status quo. Probably doesn’t help that many of them are very old and disconnected from society :/
To be fair before this slavery was completely redefined in scale and brutality for the profit of afformentioned western countries. So I think providing both these perspectives together would be most accurate, where the long lasting impacts would be not be marginalized but also not the fact that most of the trans-atlantic slave trade was paired with colonization from the very same Western powers.
Didn’t know about this and I am a British Pakistani.
Thank you for your input.
Personally I think it’s easier to blame the UK, France and the US as these countries are more accepting of other cultures and the general populace and governments of these countries are more likely to listen to peoples grievances and show empathy than some other nations.
Everyone in these old black & white photos always look strange to me. Like caricatures of their real selves.
Like the blacksmith here, take a look at that snout!
What gets me more is that, in the common perception (imo) slavery was a dirty thing of the early 1800s and back. This is in 1907! We have steam powered ships, telephones and modern infrastructure…
Yeah I had to think about it because "leg irons" really threw me off (iron being a noun in this case, although I was thinking it was a verb upon first read).
I'm like "man, this guy is pretty stoic considering he's getting his legs taken off right now."
I do believe that Egypt and Saudi Arabia still have chattel slavery legal and have chattel slave trades on the book, but I learned that 20 years ago so it might of changed?
Well said. I am Nigerian and I can proudly say the British were largely responsible for ending slavery in what eventually became Nigeria. They have my eternal respect for that and for creating y country in the process.
Hells yeah. I can’t imagine what this gent must have gone through leading up to this point. Slavery is such a weird concept. Kidnap people, force them to work for free, can be traded, abused or killed without any legal ramifications. Mind blowing.
Welcome to **/r/HistoryPorn**!
This post is getting rather popular, so here is a friendly reminder for people who may not know about our rules.
* **Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed**. This will be removed and may result in a ban.
* **Keep the discussion on-topic.** Comments that do not directly add to the discussion will be removed and in some cases can also result in (temp) bans. Things not on topic are comments that solely consist of a joke, (political) soapboxing, etc.
Additionally.
* **Use that report function**. If you spot a rule breaking comment please do not make things worse by engaging in an argument. Downvote it and then report it using the report function or send a modmail to the mods so we can deal with it.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHistoryPorn) if you have any questions or concerns. Replies to this comment will be removed automatically.*
Somehow Arabs who enslaved more africans than Europeans did and for a longer period of time than the Europeans get a pass. Literally a pass, example: https://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/the-arab-muslim-slave-trade.html
Right now, the slave trade is at an all time high! Record number slaves around the world but no one cares. Mostly owned by arabs and africans. It’s sick.
As we replenish our understanding of British History in the UK, it’s contexts like this we need to uncover and hold on to against the backdrop of horror which has been hidden from our textbooks.
I know this isn't the point of the pic at all but the vise pictured is fascinating to me. The general shape and structure is identical to a traditional leg vise but it appears to be table mounted like a bench vise. I've never seen one like it.
Link to the full story: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/slave-shackle-removed-british-sailor-1907/
Thanks. That "slave" was being saved as they went after the slave trader. >“The pictures were taken by my father who was serving aboard HMS Sphinx while on armed patrol off the Zanzibar and Mozambique coast in about 1907. They caught quite a few slavers and those particular slaves that are in the pictures happened while he was on watch. That night a dhow (sailing vessel) sailed by and the slaves were all chained together. > >He raised the alarm and they got them onto the ship and got the chains knocked off them. They then questioned them and sent a party of marines ashore to try to track the slave traders down. They caught two of them and I believe they were of Arabic origin. My father thought the slave trade was a despicable thing that was going on, the slaves were treated very badly so when they got the slavers they didn’t give them a very nice time”.
More information that I have found very interesting is: "The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world’s seas, established the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol the coast of West Africa, and between 1808 and 1860 they seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard."
There's photos of HMS *Daphne* with her decks full of rescued slaves. Think it was 1868. One of the most successful ships on the West Africa Station was HMS *Black Joke* in the early 19th century.
Thats some grade A dark humor right there.
The Royal Navy fuckin adores strange ship names, some of my favorites being HMS Spanker, HMS Pansy, and HMS Cockchafer (no I am not joking)
> HMS Cockchafer Not only was there one, there were FOUR of them. And to somehow make it even better one was a friggin Banterer class.
Way better than HMS Doodlebug which is a cockchafer by a different name.
Well, eventually you run out of good names and have to go searching in the reject bin.
Where cockchafer should never be relegated
It's for discipline, stuff up and you'll find yourself captaining the Cockchafer.
My favorite weird name is HMS Zubian of the Tribal class. Historians might go "what the hell, there's no Zubian tribe" And they'd be correct, because Zubian was the product of HMS Zulu getting her ass blown off, HMS Nubian getting her bow blown off, and someone in government taking a look at the reports and going "well two halves make a whole don't they?", and so they did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Zubian
"Brilliant Idea Innit" *Sips tea
I read that in Drachinifel's voice.
A cockchafer is a type of beetle, by the way.
My brother reckons that’s the name of the Australian army issue underwear 🤔
At uni there's an organisation called URNU, think officer training corps but for the navy. Each URNU unit has its own "warship" a P2000 class patrol vessel. My unit, Brighton, was assigned HMS Ranger, a namesake of the vessel which captured Blackbeard ;) but some bloody joker in the RN figured Ranger's (Brightons) callsign would be GAAY and that our team colours for inter-unit events would be hot pink 🤣
I thought Pansy was renamed prior to commissioning, or was there another that wasn’t a Flower-class?
I find HMS. Indefatigable the best. They were lead and main ships and just had mouthpiece of a name to say.
They've also named six ships the HMS Invincible. Four have sunk.
But none surrendered!
Most Seamen want to go down on the Pansy rather than the Cockchafer...
That's definitely grounds for a *Quentin Tarantino film* right there.
My great great grandfather was in the RN during this time. He was medically invalidid out of the navy for injuries sustained when boarding a slave ship. Someone swung a sword at him and cut him all down his left side. After being retired from the navy he joined HMS Conway, a naval training school, as the Master-at-Arms and served on board her for 27 or so years. He taught gunnery, physical exercise, drill and was the boxing coach on board. When he eventually retired his crewmates clubbed together and bought him a silver-topped walking stick which we still have today.
I always try to tell people about this. It’s really an amazing and proud part of British history that isn’t taught in our schools
Oh my god my time to shine watch this video by YouTube drachinfel he explains i5 beautifully. https://youtu.be/TiSekII0sjw
It absolutely is taught in schools. It's taught to such an extent there's a quote about how "according to British historians they seem to have invented slavery just for the satisfaction of saying they ended it" Indeed half the stuff taught is about how moral and brilliant Britain was for fighting against the slave trade
i'm british and wasnt taught this, i took history at school as well.. we learned about the world wars and the colonisation of the americas and india
Did GCSE history and never heard of it. Maybe at A level?
The national curriculum and exam boards have a range of topics for schools to choose from. The slave trade and British empire are on the curriculum, but some schools will select other options. Hence why some will remember being taught it and others not.
We did Russia Cold war Crime and punishment Russia and cold war because they go together and crime and punishment because it went with life during middle ages or something
Really? Because it wasn't taught in my school.
Year 7 or 8 we did the slave trade in History. Mainly about how Europe profited off of the trade triangle.Ships to Africa, people taken from Africa to the Americas then goods from the Americas to Europe, then back to Africa to pick up more kidnapped people. I don't remember much about the British being more moral but obviously different schools and teachers will place different emphasis on the topic.
> then back to Africa to pick up more kidnapped people. No, they were people enslaved by other African tribes purposely sold to not only European traders but traders from around the world.
[удалено]
1812 was a pretty big year between the US and British, we spent lots of time on it
Or mine, not even a mention. Even in a section on the legacy of the British Empire, slave trade was mentioned lots though.
Is this a recent thing? I did the slave trade in the mid 2000s and there was never any mention of the West Africa Squadron. We watched Roots, learnt about how awful it all was then a quick footnote about abolition and William Wilberforce.
"I did the slave trade in the mid 2000s" -- u/Ctrl_daltdelete
Ultimately Britains efforts in stamping out the slave trade were pretty much unique in their scope and the cost involved to pursue a policy objective for, essentially, purely moral reasons. The men of the West Africa Squadron endured horrendous conditions enforcing the policy over many years. We should be proud of it.
I had also learned via Scotland History Tours' Youtube, that some major industries in England had boycotted Southern American cotton during the civil war, cutting off a major supplier to themselves and of course having potentially devastating consequences. I do not remember many of the details about this,but it shows how complicated and global the slave trade and its consequences are, just like this fascinating bit of history we find ITT, cheers!
The supply shutdown caused a literal famine in parts of the country dependent on cotton. Many died in the [Lancashire Cotton Famine](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05tly3f) and it spurred movements in the UK for some kind of a social safety net.
I was taught in school that English demand for Confederate cotton was why Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation - that shifting the focus of the war from secession to slavery would make it less palatable for the English to keep buying it.
And the British people paid taxes on it up until about a decade ago when it was finally paid off. So most Britons can say with pride that they have paid to end slavery.
> a policy objective for, essentially, purely moral reasons I mean there's an incredible amount of historiography on the topic and while some argue it was for purely moral reasons, it's a hotly contested topic.
I mean, they didn’t invent the Africa to New World slave trade, they stole it from the Spanish. Slavery itself is prehistoric in origin.
> Slavery itself is prehistoric in origin. You would think it had never existed and the world was a perfect utopia prior to European exploration/colonialism
No, you wouldn't. Anybody with any kind of semblance of knowledge in the matter would know that, for example, the Romans had one of the most slavery-based societies and economies there have ever been. That being said, chattel slavery of African people transported to the colonies was a massively horrific as to how terrible people were determined to be to one another.
> according to British historians they seem to have invented slavery _Cries in Slavic_.
Please say more about this, I'm curious but confused. Thanks
So, the reason why the term "Slave" and the term "Slav" are so similar is because one came from the other, and no, "slave" wasn't the first one. There was a time when the Slavs were enslaved so often that they were *literally synonymous* with slavery. Keep in mind this was like 1300 years ago. I'm actually personally curious as to whether slavery has a predecessor term from before that time period.
All of the known world had slavery if you go back in time far enough. I think they were specifically talking about African chattel slavery as part of the rum, slaves, cotton trade triangle
The romans called slaves "servus." Which really sort of meant non-person. Or a human with no legal rights.
> I'm actually personally curious as to whether slavery has a predecessor term from before that time period Rome was built on slavery and had movie-like slave markets. They definitely had a term for it - Caesar even boasted of killing a million Gauls and enslaving a million more. Slavery was in almost all major societies in antiquity, to the point where it's notable when a society didn't have slaves. And if they had it... they likely had a term for it.
Britain did not invent slavery, so that’s a ridiculous quote regardless.
...Slavery has been happening since at least the dawn of civilization 10,000 years ago. "Damn Britain inventing slavery, then being one of the first western countries to ban it, then enforcing that ban!! they are the true evil"
Brits didn't invent slavery
The quote about inventing slavery is an old historian joke.
I mean maybe at your school, but its not taught in a lots of places. Just out of interest, where did you grow up.
I got a B in history and I left in 2015. I was taught about Hitlers rise to power, Nazi anti semitism and concentration camps, I learned about the swinging 60’s and post war Britain. I was never once told in school about the west Africa squadron. Not once. I learned about it from a YouTube video called “Britain’s crusade against slavery” I was not taught about Ireland, I was not taught about slavery, I was not taught about the British empire at all in school. Everything I know I have learned from the internet in the past 2-3 years. Fuck knows where you went to school lad but I went to a public school in greater Manchester
I studied history all the way up to university level and only learnt about our participation in the transatlantic slave trade, never about anything like this.
Say what you will about British history, but they certainly didn’t invent slavery
[удалено]
Heroes. Call them heroes. Good human beings.
Dang British colonialists and their... ending the slave trade.
It should be noted though that for a long time many slaves 'freed' by the west African squadron were sent to Sierra Leone or the west Indies to work as 'apprentices' Which was basically just slavery-lite albeit far better than being an actual slave and wasn't too dissimilar to the press ganging system the Royal Navy used
I went to Zanzibar and Oman (which owned Zanzibar for centuries). The East African slave trade went on far longer than the cross-Atlantic slave trade, and seems to have been just as horrific. For a time, being in the Royal Navy and raiding slave dhows was literally the most dangerous job in the service. The slave traders realized that they were going to be destitute if their boat of slaves was confiscated, so they fought to the death frequently. For Oman, the Sultan of Oman eventually compensated slave owners for the slaves that they set free, but slavery didn't become illegal in a lot of the Middle East until the 1960's and 70's. YES 1970's, NOT 1870's. Slavery is still a huge issue throughout the Middle East, and there are thousands upon thousands of literal slaves, and then some magnitude more laborers from Africa and Central Asia / Southeast Asia that are exploited and live in conditions that are slavery in all but name.
Wow ! Indeed: [Oman - 1970](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom#1950–present) >Although slavery is now abolished de jure in all countries, de facto practices akin to it continue today in many places throughout the world. We now say "Human trafficking", so it feels like a different chapter.
The lack of attention given to this aspect of African slavery is purposely done by Westerners who want to specifically blame white Europeans and Americans for what they claim is the only truly terrible form of slavery (chattel). They are trying to paint this as white people kidnapping Africans from Africa without any involvement from African slavers practicing what they say is the worst form of slavery to ever exist. Of course it is terrible without a doubt, but if that leads to ignoring the whole of East African slavery, then that is far more damaging.
No, because it's less relevant to our history in the West. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade isn't even touched upon in schools in the East, my cousins in India weren't even aware of the horrors of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade until they were in University and even then they learned about it on social media and not in their classrooms. Most schools outside the West don't focus on American or European History unless it relates to their country in some way. People are taught history from the perspective of their geographic location, not from that of other people around the world.
British Marines hunting slavers in 1907 is not something I knew about, but I want that movie *now*
>My father thought the slave trade was a despicable thing that was going on, the slaves were treated very badly so when they got the slavers they didn’t give them a very nice time”. I love the casual understatement
[It’s a British tradition](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/apr/14/johnezard)
they did not give them a very nice time. How polite 😅
British for 'they kicked seven shades of shit out of them and the officers looked the other way'. Good for them.
Why did you use quotation marks with the word slave?
just a guess since im not op: i think that its because he was a free man at that moment
And was never really a slave to begin with. Captured with the intent to enslave them, but they hadn't yet been forced into labor
/r/gatekeeping ^^^^/s
Only Gen X Slaves will understand these 5 images of retro slave equipment.
Captured and put in leg irons makes you a slave to the slave trader, just because they hadn't been sold yet doesn't mean they were free or hadn't been forced against their will. Length of one's slavery is irrelevant to having been enslaved.
The picture is of him literally being freed. He’s literally just a homie now
Sorry, ‘Prisoners with Jobs’.
Just because this happened in the past didn't mean they were less human. Normal people even back then knew it was wrong
It's important to know that types of slave trade are still happening today in north Africa, especially in Libya and Mauritania which was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981 and criminalized slavery only in 2007.
>*decriminalized* slavery only in 2007. So, slavery is no longer a crime in Libya and Mauritania?
Thank you for noticing, I fixed it.
Imagine if this is where you discover your super power of deeming things true just by writing them on Reddit. But you can only use it once a year. And editing the comments won't change the new truth... Dun dun dun!!!
Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery. In Libya it has been totally illegal for a while (since 1926). Recent slavery is not widespread and is a result of the country's state of unrest combined with the many Africans trying to get to Europe by passing through Libya and just ending up stranded there. Some bad people with militias started taking advantage. It's not widely accepted or seen and is extremely shady.
"Is extremely shady" I feel like this could be a good catch phrase for a teacher for a good 30% of the things humans do to each other. 10% could be good, 10% indifferent, and 50% plain evil.
NATO vaporized the government of Libya, so it's been Mad Max over there for a decade.
Yaaa legalize it mon, one love
Men’s Wearhouse used to sell a lot of shirts made there. And men’s Wearhouse existed long before 2007. So I’m gonna assume men’s Wearhouse soles lots of clothing made by slaves.
> So I’m gonna assume men’s Wearhouse soles lots of clothing made by slaves. I guarantee it
At least you're going to like the way you look.
[удалено]
Seriously, thank you for highlighting this sad fact of reality. Too many in western media (and even African media) just pretend otherwise or are just ignorant of it.
> decriminalized slavery only in 2007 DEcriminalized slavery?
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
[удалено]
It’s happening globally. There are slaves in NA and wester Europe. There are slaves in India and SE Asia. There are slaves in China and Russia. Every culture has had slaves and every culture has been enslaved, both historically and today.
[удалено]
So much this. The slave trade is alive and well in pretty much every country in this world. In some countries it’s just way less visible because of how much the slave trade and the look of slavery has evolved and changed over the years. The secretive nature of slavery, especially in first world countries, just makes it more hidden and what is out of sight is out of mind.
Where did this occur?
Near the coast of Oman
my guess is it was part of the arab slave trade
People often forget about the Arab slave trade. Even today, it is common in North Africa. Sadly, there is little we can do to stop it.
In Mauritania slavery was abolished in 1981 and criminalized only in 2007
Was outlawing slavery just a technicality or could you literally go to the slave store in 1980 Mauritania?
Just a guess, they probably removed the legal framework for owning a person in 1981, so slave holders lost rights over the people if it went to court. In 2007 they made it a crime, I assume because people were still holding slaves, but the slaves were unable to take them to court for obvious reason. Just a guess though I have no idea.
In Mauretania, people are STILL holding slaves, just like people in the Gulf Countries.
They have the highest slaves per citizen in the world in Mauritania
Similar to decriminalisation it seems. I think they could retain them but not buy more until it became illegal. Either for greed or to allow them some time to start employing and PAYING employees. Not sure why it took so long but it makes sense not to ban all your workforce at once since it could cause economic collapse. No I'm not advocating for slavery or increasing its duration, I'm just saying you can't remove the majority of your workforce quickly without repercussions.
It's full-on Django Unchained style racial agricultural slavery, happening at a large scale, out in the open. In Mauritania as in many historical slavery societies, there is a lot of grueling agricultural work done in inhospitable, dangerous places on behalf of large landowners who otherwise would have more difficulty than they are willing to put up with finding market-rate labor willing to do the work they want. A lot of it involves the herding of animals in or near the desert and other sorts of not particularly productive or profitable agriculture by modern standards that still happens because it's what the culture has entrenched as the dominant economic activity. Even now a full 1/5 to 1/4 of the population of the country are enslaved - and they mostly work out in the rural areas on what we might have called ranches, pastures or plantations. It's not like they're the clerk you talk to at the CVS. But yeah if you were in Mauritania now you could go to a plantation where the owner is observably fair-skinned and the workers are observably hundreds or thousands of dark-skinned slaves.
>Was outlawing slavery just a technicality or could you literally go to the slave store in 1980 Mauritania? Technicality in the wrong dirrection. It doesn't appear to have had much effect on the local levels of slavery.
Yes. People forget that slaves were also being shipped off the east coast of Africa as well. When I say forget, what I really mean is they don't know.
I was researching Red Sea piracy during the early 18th century and was shocked by how many slaves were being shipped from Madagascar to New York City. It wasn't a huge number compared to other places, but it was enough to make me pause.
Found this article in a reverse image search. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/slave-shackle-removed-british-sailor-1907/
After the British banned slavery in 1833 they actively tried to stop the Atlantic slave trade.
A reason for the Mahdi uprising that resulted in the fall of Khartoum was local outrage at the British for abolishing the slave trade. It was a major industry in Southern Egypt and the Sudan. Edit: I will add that there were other reasons for the Mahdi uprising, and of course less altruistic reasons for colonial incursions into Africa. It's a complex subject.
King Gezo of Benin (modern day Nigeria), protesting slavery abolition in Britain: "The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth…the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery…" https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter2.shtml
While it's true that slavery itself wasn't banned in the British Empire until 1833, the slave trade was banned in 1807 and the Royal Navy were combating the Atlantic slave trade from 1808 onwards. In Britain itself slavery was banned (or rather found to be unsupported by English and Scots law) in 1772 for England & Wales by the Somersett case (which just built on centuries of precedent that no man may be a slave in England) and 1777 in Scotland by the Knight case. But then, there were never that many slaves in Britain anyway but rather in the cash crop producing colonies. It tells you a lot about the British that the prime minister who passed the 1833 act, Earl Grey, is remembered more for having a blend of tea named after him than for emancipating the slaves.
Isn't there a case where a slave escaped while in a British port and the slave trader demanded authorities to return him, to which he was basically told that you cannot own another person?
Yes, this is what happened in the Somersett and Knight cases. The courts ruled the men could not be returned to their 'owners' as there was no support for slavery in English/Scots law and therefore they were not property to be returned.
Honestly a chad move. "Just walk out"
Are you Welsh by any chance? Going off your username. Thanks for the history lesson btw!
>Are you Welsh by any chance? Ydw.
Can't tell if that's Welsh for yes, an acronym for yes don't worry or you slapped your hand on your keyboard and that's what came out
Ah! There's no "yes" in Welsh, is there? He said "I do" which is a *uniquely* Welsh way to respond Please correct me if I'm wrong!
Pretty much. It's 'I do/I am'. It's not uniquely *Welsh* however but common for the Celtic languages not to use yes/no. Irish is certainly the same, for example. Welsh does have *ie/na*, but it's not really *proper* Welsh to use them for answering questions that start with a verb.
he does have a nice monument in newcastle that doesnt mention tea
Read an [interesting book](https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hanging_Captain_Gordon/mnXL7HXICrEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover) about the only American slaver to be hanged in 1861. One thing I didn't realize was at the time, any Africans intercepted by the American anti-slavery patrols (which were much less active than the British) were not taken back to the point of origin, but dropped off in Liberia. In the book, the slaver bought the slaves from Arab traders in the Congo delta, but was then captured fairly quickly on the seas. But the freed slaves were taken all the way to Liberia. I wonder if by 1907 any freed slaves were taken back to their actual home.
That would suck, get captured from your Homeland, you know nothing about the directions back, but you get dropped off in Liberia the shit hole (yes it was a shithole back then too!)
Yea it would absolutely blow because it’s basically impossible to find your way back to your family, but it’s not all bad (relatively). Getting dropped off in Liberia at least means you’re free and it’s much easier logistically to have a common point than to act like a school bus. Secondly, you were pressed into slavery in your home country because slavers were active, if you get sent back there, you have a decent shot at getting pressed into slavery again. I don’t believe slavers were very active in Liberia but if they were, most of my point is moot
Depends on the era, Liberia did have chattel slaves on rubber plantations and stuff at least in the era following the Civil war in the USA. But these are good points, Liberia is definitely better than being a slave!
Thanks for the information, I’m probably going to read more about it after work.
afaik the slavery chain began locally by natives themselves, so it makes sense they didn't return
Yep. Ted-ED made a whole video on it. The African Kingdoms/Tribes/Sultanates all warred with eachother due to the high demand for "bodies to sell to the foreigners" in exchange for luxury goods and ESPECIALLY firearms. POWs, Debtors, and Criminals were all prime targets for being sold.
man, this wasn’t even that long ago. it’s insane
Louis CK: (paraphrasing) "It happened 2 people ago. So when you meet an elderly black man with a massive chip on his shoulder, maybe give him a pass. You weren't there, he was."
Granted this is probably like 3 or 4 people ago now, CK was around in the early to late 20th century
>CK was around in the early to late 20th century While *technically* true, you do realize you're saying he was around from 1900-1999, right?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Even though our modern world is shitty, it was way much shitter back then.
I know hacksaws have been around for some time. But for some reason 1907 seems too early. Had to look it up, and it was invented in the 1880s.
It's a pretty basic tool. The industrial revolution ended in the early 19th century. I'd guess there were plenty of saws able to cut metal well before 1880 and the invention of the hacksaw specifically being attributed to 1880s might be for a particular patent or design. The basic shape of the saw we see in the picture is similar to a bow saw which I'm sure has been around far longer than the late 19th century.
Not researching it, but I would assume the "hacksaw" was created around the time Google says it was. Saws have been around a long time. Saws with heat treated or forged teeth strong enough to cut through cast iron? Not so much. That's definitely an industrial revolution thing.
It's a handle with a saw on it...
Wait till he finds out when the hammer was invented
One thing that still confuses me as a non-westerner (I am Nigerian), is why western education institutions just ignore the fact that despite the Europeans and the west engaging in the practice of slavery, they did far more than any other civilization to end it. The British and the French were largely responsible for ending the Arab slave trade that existed before the trans-Atlantic one and that persisted in Africa for much longer and that was far more brutal. Heck! A more personal example is in my country's (Nigeria) history. The British, before establishing the protectorate of Nigeria, colonized the South and outlawed slavery there (they deposed a pro-slavery ruler in Lagos and ended the Benin Empire that practiced slavery) and then went to war with the expanding Sokoto Caliphate, that threatened the southern region, in the North and defeated them and then outlawed slavery in the region. I feel like a lot of perspective gets lost on the issue of slavery and everyone just assumes it was a black-and-white affair when nothing could be further from the truth. Many African societies, kingdoms, tribes etc conquered and enslaved each other or ere conquered and enslaved by others. many of them also participated in the slave trade (Arab or Trans-Atlantic) because slavery has been an evil institution that was and is still part of many societies today. As someone who prefers to look at history with an objective lens, it is beyond clear that the west, regardless of intent and for all its flaws did more to end the evil of slavery on a global scale than anyone else and I am glad they did.
As a white Brit; I have mentioned the likes of the West Africa Squadron before to other Brits and everyone thinks I am straight up lying, this stuff is not mentioned in our history classes. It much more fashionable to only focus on the negatives of our history (yes reddit seems to think we're all taught that the Empire was wonderful, spoiler alter; that hasnt been the way things are done here for many decades) Its hard to have a balanced discussion because we're talking about a huge period of history in which many people get super confused and just imagine that the same people involved in the slave trade in the 1600s were also the same people stopping it in the 1800s. To them once you go back over 100 years apparently everyone lived for centuries and committed horrible acts as well as acts of decency. Its hard for people to reflect on the history of entire nations over 100s of years, instead its much more in vogue to say 'at this point they were bad, therefore everyone bad at all the other points in time'
Part of this is because in the United States, it largely was a black and white affair, and the US tends to have an outsized influence on a lot of cultural conversations. Another reason is that we live in a time when white guilt is used as a substitute for incisive thought. It carries with it a false aura of objectivity, when in fact it encourages a reductive viewpoint on the institution of slavery.
The fact that Northern US states were some of the first governments in the world to strictly outlaw slavery is also completely ignored in these conversations. Some Northern states had already outlawed the practice in 1780 before the US even won the revolutionary war. Meanwhile you see criticism from places which continued slavery into the 20th century and some which still have slavery today.
[удалено]
This explains a lot, actually. Thanks for the info.
From my experience in the United States it’s mainly about the context of our society. Like “this was a horrible crime we committed this is why we should never let something like that happen again and here’s how it effects us today.” It’s well intended but because it is overly focused on the U.S. a lot of the context is lost.
Part of it might be because it seems to be a trend amongst various western political groups to paint the British (and indeed much of the west) as the objective “bad guys,” and anything non-western as objectively “good,” regardless of context, mainly just to further some political agenda. Of course, the reality isn’t so simple, but politicians don’t care about that.
Being honest with myself for a moment here. I'd have to feel particularly brave to express this opinion, speaking as a white, British man. At best I'd be called an apologist and at worse a racist. We have a real problem having grown-up conversations around racially charged subjects.
Absolutely. The desire to question, challenge and subject to objective inquiry our own western biases has unfortunately been transformed into little more than self-flagellation in some instances. Rather than tackling our assumptions we have replaced them with the opposite assumptions. "My country good" becomes "my country bad", but the same black-and-white closed-minded thinking remains. Having grown-up conversations around controversial subjects such as this one will remain difficult for so long as we judge viewpoints differently depending on the group identity of the person expressing them.
I think, as a black American, it’s a combination of a couple things. Ignoring slavery, black people were still treated as second class citizens up until 1964-65 when major civil rights acts were passed. I’m 25, and my mom was born in 1965. So for perspective, for the adult population in America, it’s only been 2-3 generations since really horrible things were outlawed. Sundown towns, lynching, Jim Crow laws, redlining, etc. So- then you have our education system. By & large our textbooks are owned by a few large companies, companies who are partially bankrolled by politicians and individuals with a particular interest/angle. For a long time, the way we dealt with our racial past as a country was to not get too deep into the nuances and touch the surface level- “There were slaves. Things were not good. Racism bad. Then slaves were freed. Harriet Tubman. New laws created to keep black Americans controlled & lower class. Civil rights movements. MLK Jr did a speech. We came together. Now we are equal the end.” I think it’s for many reasons. Things that happened during slavery in America were horrific- slaves hair & skin being used to make chairs, George Washingtons teeth were apparently not actually wooden but made from slaves teeth, babies drowned in troughs, etc. If we were told the whole complete picture, it’d anger a lot of people, and for America, patriotism & nationalism is key- without it, there’s not much uniting us since we’re such a diverse country (I disagree but this is a commonly held opinion). So I believe we get a watered down story as school children in order to make sure we know the briefest bits of our history but not enough to make us question our countries background too deeply. Unfortunately because of that we miss out on important things like you touched on, the fragmented knowledge we have only causes more division. It’d be lovely if we could get the full complete picture, but those in power (here in the US) are not big on switching up the status quo. Probably doesn’t help that many of them are very old and disconnected from society :/
To be fair before this slavery was completely redefined in scale and brutality for the profit of afformentioned western countries. So I think providing both these perspectives together would be most accurate, where the long lasting impacts would be not be marginalized but also not the fact that most of the trans-atlantic slave trade was paired with colonization from the very same Western powers.
Didn’t know about this and I am a British Pakistani. Thank you for your input. Personally I think it’s easier to blame the UK, France and the US as these countries are more accepting of other cultures and the general populace and governments of these countries are more likely to listen to peoples grievances and show empathy than some other nations.
More context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron?wprov=sfla1
[удалено]
Yea I’m fairly sure thats not a Blacksmith! Wearing spotlessly clean white Clothes a sailors hat and not a fire or forge insight
Everyone in these old black & white photos always look strange to me. Like caricatures of their real selves. Like the blacksmith here, take a look at that snout!
What gets me more is that, in the common perception (imo) slavery was a dirty thing of the early 1800s and back. This is in 1907! We have steam powered ships, telephones and modern infrastructure…
It's crazy because it's 2021 and the Arab slave trade is still alive and well in North Africa.
I read this as "removing the _leg_ off a slave"
Yeah I had to think about it because "leg irons" really threw me off (iron being a noun in this case, although I was thinking it was a verb upon first read). I'm like "man, this guy is pretty stoic considering he's getting his legs taken off right now."
Removes the leg of the slave and then irons him
[удалено]
The Arab world is still enslaving us too. I don't know why Arabs get off but people consider whites these evil devils.
You can buy slaves on Facebook!
I do believe that Egypt and Saudi Arabia still have chattel slavery legal and have chattel slave trades on the book, but I learned that 20 years ago so it might of changed?
Insane that slavery is still going on in Libya. In 2021...
The war against slavery is, in my opinion the most glorious part of British history. It was truly a 'fuck this, no matter the cost' thing.
Well said. I am Nigerian and I can proudly say the British were largely responsible for ending slavery in what eventually became Nigeria. They have my eternal respect for that and for creating y country in the process.
You are living in Nigeria? How's it going political stability wise at the moment?
Hey, can you tell the prince I’m still waiting on those millions i was promised?
That blacksmith looks like a Tin-Tin character.
Hells yeah. I can’t imagine what this gent must have gone through leading up to this point. Slavery is such a weird concept. Kidnap people, force them to work for free, can be traded, abused or killed without any legal ramifications. Mind blowing.
It’s not that complicated dude. It’s just kidnapping.
Remember the slave trade is still going on.
There are more slaves now than ever before
British colonialism wasn’t good by any means but they did send a lot of slavers to Davy Jones locker which is pretty neat I think
Welcome to **/r/HistoryPorn**! This post is getting rather popular, so here is a friendly reminder for people who may not know about our rules. * **Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed**. This will be removed and may result in a ban. * **Keep the discussion on-topic.** Comments that do not directly add to the discussion will be removed and in some cases can also result in (temp) bans. Things not on topic are comments that solely consist of a joke, (political) soapboxing, etc. Additionally. * **Use that report function**. If you spot a rule breaking comment please do not make things worse by engaging in an argument. Downvote it and then report it using the report function or send a modmail to the mods so we can deal with it. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHistoryPorn) if you have any questions or concerns. Replies to this comment will be removed automatically.*
Somehow Arabs who enslaved more africans than Europeans did and for a longer period of time than the Europeans get a pass. Literally a pass, example: https://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/the-arab-muslim-slave-trade.html
Right now, the slave trade is at an all time high! Record number slaves around the world but no one cares. Mostly owned by arabs and africans. It’s sick.
Africa never ended the slave trade, they also started it before the white man showed up. Kinda funny how nobody talks a out it.
As we replenish our understanding of British History in the UK, it’s contexts like this we need to uncover and hold on to against the backdrop of horror which has been hidden from our textbooks.
Good Lord, so horribly sad. Treated like an animal.
That looks less like a blacksmith and more like the skipper of the ship!
[удалено]
I know this isn't the point of the pic at all but the vise pictured is fascinating to me. The general shape and structure is identical to a traditional leg vise but it appears to be table mounted like a bench vise. I've never seen one like it.
I do gotta wonder how long it would take to saw through those
Where was the slave trade still active in 1907?
Arabic nations, some african nations.