Bornin the 60s and brought up in the 70s, I was not taught that Great Britain was responsible for slavery; if anything, the emphasis was placed on William Wilberforce who was the first person in Parliament to try and stop it.
So-called 'intellectuals' from Oxford and Cambridge have always been influential in government and therefore education and every other branch of knowledge. The difference was that, in the past, these people had better educations and understanding of business and could actually do their jobs.
The more recent outputs have been promoted beyond their abilities and are incompetent in comparison.
They still do much of the placing of equally incompetent friends and sycophants into important jobs like chancellors of universities, the Civil Service, the Foreign Office ...
They are the citizens of nowhere, expert in nothing, particularly brought up in the 80s, the years of excess and rank stupidity. And that sort of 'leadership' is now completely finishing us as a nation.
The university intelligentsia have been undermining our culture pride and Nationalism for years. Why is it we have Fact Checking on Social Media but nothing in the Universities ?
Nope. But you are. You produce shite without evidence, aim to play on prejudice and ferment hate and fear on ‘vibes.’ You’ll probably be successful on here but I’m glad I’m not you
A superb demonstration of what the article was talking about. The comment presents a viewpoint that makes no claim to rational debate and is a purely emotional reaction. 'Shite without evidence'? Take any point from the article and justify this statement.
I don’t think the statements made about slavery are not correct.
Slavery disappeared from England before 1200 AD. It had been tolerated by most Anglo-Saxons, but St Wulstan, bishop of Worcester, campaigned against the trade in slaves (from Bristol to the Viking port of Dublin) and ended it. Slavery was subsequently restricted by William the Conqueror, and afterwards an Archbishop of Canterbury, either Lanfranc or St Anselm, condemned slavery in principle. After Britain became involved in the transatlantic slave trade the legality of slavery in England was tested in a court case and found to be illegal, so that any slave bought to England would be free.
I don’t know what was happening in the rest of Europe, but the pope condemned the beginning of the slave trade in the Canary Islands, and Queen Isabella forbade slavery in the Spanish colonies in 1500AD.
I’ve often wondered why other European countries like Portugal, Britain and France permitted the slave trade, but we’re all capable of holding contradictory opinions at times.
None of this is to deny that Britain subsequently abolished both the slave trade and then slavery itself in its empire, and that this was a huge step forward for the world.
My personal experience of Latin America is mainly of Mexico, with brief visits to Peru and Venezuela, and my reading is mainly about the 16th century. The source you quote (thanks again) tends to agree more with my view than yours, namely that Spain was less invested in slavery than comparable European powers. I think there is a general consensus that Spanish culture peaked in the 16th century. The culture that once had stood against slavery declined into a laggard that retained it the longest; sic transit gloria mundi.
I have read that the purpose of the British colonisation of West Africa was opposition to slavery. I suspect that someone more cynical of European actions than you or I might claim that this was a pretext rather than a genuine motivation, but perhaps you have another scholarly source available to shed more light?
But to return to my original criticism of your article, I don’t think you have justified your claim that nobody declared slavery a sin or crime before the British empire. I’ve quoted a number of people who did just that, and others could be added eg the historian William of Malmesbury, who excoriates slavery in his biography of Wulstan.
I don’t have any quarrel with your basic argument that the British Empire led the way in abolition of slavery, and enforcing the destruction of the slave trade, or that these were noble acts. My point is that was a return to a long-standing opposition to slavery which had gradually eliminated slavery from Europe; this does not detract from the subsequent British achievement.
The actual text reads: 'In 1750 hardly anyone thought that it was wrong to have slaves'. However, I take your point that there were some philosophers, statesmen and churchmen throughout the world who opposed slavery. William of Malmesbury is an excellent reference, it is cheering to think of him upholding 'Arthurian' ideals. On the other hand it is interesting that the Koran treats slavery as normal and the NT of the Bible is fairly mute on the issue .
The point in the article was that slavery was generally acceptable in the eighteenth century. In 1750 there were few places in the world where having a couple of slaves in your household would be the source of legal action or even derision. The British Empire enforced abolition through the barrel of a gun in the nineteenth century and this changed the world.
The best places to look about the intentions behind the invasion of Nigeria and the conversion of Zanzibar into a protectorate are Hansard and the Times.
In fact the Empire was becoming a modern state with a vibrant press, rapid communications and even a telegraph from London to India by 1868. The game was up for the East India Company and similar corporations that preferred shady operations to a modern media glare. In 2025 our modern media would demand the invasion of Nigeria if it were still capturing and selling slaves despite Treaties to the contrary. Ditto for Zanzibar. Things were little different in 1840.
The importance of the British Empire in the history of slavery is not just that it criminalised the practice but between 1832 and 1880 was the unrivalled global superpower. For the first time abolition could be imposed by treaties backed by real threats of force over the entire world.
The abolition of the slave trade extended globally, not just within the Empire. Ships transporting slaves were seized by the Royal Navy all around the world and a dedicated anti-slave trade squadron patrolled the Atlantic in the 19th century. See the list of treaties in: https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/slavery-the-slave-trade-and-reparations.
Thanks for the link to that very interesting website.
Yes, slavery did exist within the Spanish empire, but it was discouraged and limited. Columbus brought slaves to Spain but was ordered to return them home. Clergy like Antonio de Montesinos and de las Casas attacked slavery as an institution in written submissions to kings and in the Valladolid controversy, resulting in laws protecting pre Columbia’s “Indians”. Exceptions within the laws allowed colonists to continue practicing slavery, but everyone would have been aware it was an amoral business. The situation was perhaps comparable to toleration of prostitution in contemporary Britain.
I agree entirely about the great achievement of the Royal Navy, and I’m not seeking to detract from it.
Having been to Cuba and Western South America it is obvious that Spain was fully content to indulge in slavery like the other European powers. As in the rest of Europe there were some dissenters but Spain, like the others, treated slavery as a normal method of production in the eighteenth century. It abolished slavery in 1867, which is later than even the USA.
The British Empire invasions of West and East Africa in 1860s-70s, specifically to stop slaving, removed the supply of slaves.
Great post. I would like to posit the idea that is it slightly reminiscent of those hapless noobs who say things like "Communism is a great idea, but it's just never been done properly" or what have you. To wit: the British 'education' system is not a failure, but a roaring success. The aim of the game was never to educate the Brits but rather to install this unhappy and nationality-free mass idiocy, just like Communism has always been a complete success, as soon as you realise the aim is is not to create a 'worker's paradise' as claimed, but rather to steal a country and its wealth, starve most of the inhabitants to death and enslave the remainder.
Can you show me the research on people believing wobbling hairs? BTW, your whole intro is laboured and unreadable. I say this as an experienced editor at the highest level. But back to the racist rot. Where did you get your stuff about slavery? Almost everyone understands Britain's role in slavery, both in its creation as an industry and its abolition. And where did you get figures for those who 'curse the British Empire'? And show me who, exactly 'make up' stories about the industrial revolution? There are numerous reasons that the industrial revolution occurred in Britain, not least climate and the conditions for rapid population growth – and the religious/political developments that created a middle class (which did not exist in Brazil or Spain). But, it is undeniable that the income from the colonies, including the slave trade, gave impetus to the industrial revolution. And almost no one I've ever spoken to believes that multinationals and international banks are the route to economic success for a nation. Can you show your working out on that? Oh, and quoting Nyerere to justify an attack on multiculturism is pretty pathetic. How multicultural is the UK? At the last census 81.7 per cent of the population identified as 'white.' And who knows about the Sukuma tribe? Islamic scholars helped change the way science developed, for sure, but that was during the Reconquista, six or seven centuries before the period you mention. You assertion that the education system has 'failed' is a unsubstantiated opinion. Oxford consistently ranks in the top three universities in the world and, arguably, Cambridge is better. I have many reservations about the system but 'failed'? Then we get to 'internationalist teachers.' Seriously? What you appear to be suggesting is a one-sided version of history instead of a well-rounded, warts-and-all version. 'International teachers' is simply one of those right-wing buzzphrases that has no meaning. 'Burning our identity and letting it dissipate on the wind.' Vibes, man, vibes. BTW, I'm not middle class and don't have a degree. What I am is a journalist who can see bullshit when it's in front of him. And if you really want to say 'get rid of black people, muslims and johnny foreigner,' just say it. Grow some balls you deluded, semi-educated fool.
The article does not actually say that atheists are idiots. The message is that agnosticism is the only viable option when we consider how little we know and especially how little we know about the phenomenon of seeing and reading this comment, as opposed to the process of seeing and reading it.
I agree that that there must be 'more'. The definition of idiot in the dictionary veers towards someone of no ability and no understanding. They would be closed to other possibilities. But an idiot is also gullible so it is necessary to be skeptical - agnostic.
I see it differently. An agnostic admits they don't know. That means accepting beliefs in others that are not demonstrably or logically false or harmful (in the sense of real, physical or mental damage). In principle an agnostic would have the courage to accept that they do not know. If I go to church and do not 'believe' I do not expect an exemption from any fate a Christian might expect for an unbeliever just because I have gone through the motions of attending church. I am prepared to accept that a Christian may have access to a way of knowing that I do not understand but must be honest with myself and admit to myself that I do not understand.
The problem with atheism is its claim to completeness. This can be summarised as the idea that all phenomena can be explained by processes. This extends to the unknown: even phenomena that we have yet to observe will be explained by processes. A process occurs when one thing interacts with another to change the state of the pair. This leads to ideas such as 'if we build ever more powerful computers they will become conscious' or 'feelings are just chemicals acting on neurons'.
If we have a feeling it is a phenomenon, not a process. Even a mundane feeling like a a sore toe is there, not exactly at my toe but around it. There are no waves of pain flowing from the toe, there is no flow in the phenomenon. It is simply there. Sure, I know about pain receptors, electrical transmission in nerves etc. but the phenomenon is there, in my toe. Processes correlate with the phenomenon but they are not the phenomenon itself. All phenomena CANNOT be explained by processes.
In fact processes only explain the interactions between phenomena. They explain how electric fields repel one electron from another but are silent about the nature of an electron itself. Phenomena are not explained by processes, only the interactions between phenomena are explained by processes.
So there is a really fundamental problem with atheism: functionalism does not provide an understanding of phenomena themselves. It might explain how the light from this screen gets into your eyes and brain but is entirely mute about the phenomena itself that contains these patterns here.
To base one's beliefs on the relations between things rather than on things themselves must be a mistake.
Agnostics do not have a belief in God. An Atheist is someone who not only does not believe in a God but advances reasons for being certain that there is no God. They believe in 'no god'. If the issue were one of lack of belief they could be Agnostics and there would be no need to be Atheist.
In my experience Atheists are functionalists. This certainly applied to Dennett and applies to Dawkins.
As you know, Moral Philosophy is another whole area for contemplation. :)
The Buddhists believe that the stability of a life lived according to moral rules is essential for 'enlightenment'. Utilitarians make morality up as they go. Christians imply it comes from being Christ-like and you wont get into heaven without it... I am with the Buddhists on morality and see it as part of the structure of an adult psyche - this would apply whether or not nirvana exists.
Bornin the 60s and brought up in the 70s, I was not taught that Great Britain was responsible for slavery; if anything, the emphasis was placed on William Wilberforce who was the first person in Parliament to try and stop it.
So-called 'intellectuals' from Oxford and Cambridge have always been influential in government and therefore education and every other branch of knowledge. The difference was that, in the past, these people had better educations and understanding of business and could actually do their jobs.
The more recent outputs have been promoted beyond their abilities and are incompetent in comparison.
They still do much of the placing of equally incompetent friends and sycophants into important jobs like chancellors of universities, the Civil Service, the Foreign Office ...
They are the citizens of nowhere, expert in nothing, particularly brought up in the 80s, the years of excess and rank stupidity. And that sort of 'leadership' is now completely finishing us as a nation.
The university intelligentsia have been undermining our culture pride and Nationalism for years. Why is it we have Fact Checking on Social Media but nothing in the Universities ?
Nope. But you are. You produce shite without evidence, aim to play on prejudice and ferment hate and fear on ‘vibes.’ You’ll probably be successful on here but I’m glad I’m not you
A superb demonstration of what the article was talking about. The comment presents a viewpoint that makes no claim to rational debate and is a purely emotional reaction. 'Shite without evidence'? Take any point from the article and justify this statement.
I don’t think the statements made about slavery are not correct.
Slavery disappeared from England before 1200 AD. It had been tolerated by most Anglo-Saxons, but St Wulstan, bishop of Worcester, campaigned against the trade in slaves (from Bristol to the Viking port of Dublin) and ended it. Slavery was subsequently restricted by William the Conqueror, and afterwards an Archbishop of Canterbury, either Lanfranc or St Anselm, condemned slavery in principle. After Britain became involved in the transatlantic slave trade the legality of slavery in England was tested in a court case and found to be illegal, so that any slave bought to England would be free.
I don’t know what was happening in the rest of Europe, but the pope condemned the beginning of the slave trade in the Canary Islands, and Queen Isabella forbade slavery in the Spanish colonies in 1500AD.
I’ve often wondered why other European countries like Portugal, Britain and France permitted the slave trade, but we’re all capable of holding contradictory opinions at times.
None of this is to deny that Britain subsequently abolished both the slave trade and then slavery itself in its empire, and that this was a huge step forward for the world.
My personal experience of Latin America is mainly of Mexico, with brief visits to Peru and Venezuela, and my reading is mainly about the 16th century. The source you quote (thanks again) tends to agree more with my view than yours, namely that Spain was less invested in slavery than comparable European powers. I think there is a general consensus that Spanish culture peaked in the 16th century. The culture that once had stood against slavery declined into a laggard that retained it the longest; sic transit gloria mundi.
I have read that the purpose of the British colonisation of West Africa was opposition to slavery. I suspect that someone more cynical of European actions than you or I might claim that this was a pretext rather than a genuine motivation, but perhaps you have another scholarly source available to shed more light?
But to return to my original criticism of your article, I don’t think you have justified your claim that nobody declared slavery a sin or crime before the British empire. I’ve quoted a number of people who did just that, and others could be added eg the historian William of Malmesbury, who excoriates slavery in his biography of Wulstan.
I don’t have any quarrel with your basic argument that the British Empire led the way in abolition of slavery, and enforcing the destruction of the slave trade, or that these were noble acts. My point is that was a return to a long-standing opposition to slavery which had gradually eliminated slavery from Europe; this does not detract from the subsequent British achievement.
The actual text reads: 'In 1750 hardly anyone thought that it was wrong to have slaves'. However, I take your point that there were some philosophers, statesmen and churchmen throughout the world who opposed slavery. William of Malmesbury is an excellent reference, it is cheering to think of him upholding 'Arthurian' ideals. On the other hand it is interesting that the Koran treats slavery as normal and the NT of the Bible is fairly mute on the issue .
The point in the article was that slavery was generally acceptable in the eighteenth century. In 1750 there were few places in the world where having a couple of slaves in your household would be the source of legal action or even derision. The British Empire enforced abolition through the barrel of a gun in the nineteenth century and this changed the world.
The best places to look about the intentions behind the invasion of Nigeria and the conversion of Zanzibar into a protectorate are Hansard and the Times.
See Hansard 1844 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1844-07-16/debates/48a27fbf-86ce-4457-a89c-8d8339526456/SlaveTrade and https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1876-04-04/debates/45f1acf5-97d7-414c-a204-da49273e9e44/SlaveTrade(EastAfrica)
In fact the Empire was becoming a modern state with a vibrant press, rapid communications and even a telegraph from London to India by 1868. The game was up for the East India Company and similar corporations that preferred shady operations to a modern media glare. In 2025 our modern media would demand the invasion of Nigeria if it were still capturing and selling slaves despite Treaties to the contrary. Ditto for Zanzibar. Things were little different in 1840.
The importance of the British Empire in the history of slavery is not just that it criminalised the practice but between 1832 and 1880 was the unrivalled global superpower. For the first time abolition could be imposed by treaties backed by real threats of force over the entire world.
The abolition of the slave trade extended globally, not just within the Empire. Ships transporting slaves were seized by the Royal Navy all around the world and a dedicated anti-slave trade squadron patrolled the Atlantic in the 19th century. See the list of treaties in: https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/slavery-the-slave-trade-and-reparations.
Spain was a slaving state. See for instance: https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0146
Thanks for the link to that very interesting website.
Yes, slavery did exist within the Spanish empire, but it was discouraged and limited. Columbus brought slaves to Spain but was ordered to return them home. Clergy like Antonio de Montesinos and de las Casas attacked slavery as an institution in written submissions to kings and in the Valladolid controversy, resulting in laws protecting pre Columbia’s “Indians”. Exceptions within the laws allowed colonists to continue practicing slavery, but everyone would have been aware it was an amoral business. The situation was perhaps comparable to toleration of prostitution in contemporary Britain.
I agree entirely about the great achievement of the Royal Navy, and I’m not seeking to detract from it.
Having been to Cuba and Western South America it is obvious that Spain was fully content to indulge in slavery like the other European powers. As in the rest of Europe there were some dissenters but Spain, like the others, treated slavery as a normal method of production in the eighteenth century. It abolished slavery in 1867, which is later than even the USA.
The British Empire invasions of West and East Africa in 1860s-70s, specifically to stop slaving, removed the supply of slaves.
See https://shc.stanford.edu/arcade/publications/rofl/issues/volume-3-issue-1/spanish-antislavery-and-africa-1808-1898
Great post. I would like to posit the idea that is it slightly reminiscent of those hapless noobs who say things like "Communism is a great idea, but it's just never been done properly" or what have you. To wit: the British 'education' system is not a failure, but a roaring success. The aim of the game was never to educate the Brits but rather to install this unhappy and nationality-free mass idiocy, just like Communism has always been a complete success, as soon as you realise the aim is is not to create a 'worker's paradise' as claimed, but rather to steal a country and its wealth, starve most of the inhabitants to death and enslave the remainder.
Can you show me the research on people believing wobbling hairs? BTW, your whole intro is laboured and unreadable. I say this as an experienced editor at the highest level. But back to the racist rot. Where did you get your stuff about slavery? Almost everyone understands Britain's role in slavery, both in its creation as an industry and its abolition. And where did you get figures for those who 'curse the British Empire'? And show me who, exactly 'make up' stories about the industrial revolution? There are numerous reasons that the industrial revolution occurred in Britain, not least climate and the conditions for rapid population growth – and the religious/political developments that created a middle class (which did not exist in Brazil or Spain). But, it is undeniable that the income from the colonies, including the slave trade, gave impetus to the industrial revolution. And almost no one I've ever spoken to believes that multinationals and international banks are the route to economic success for a nation. Can you show your working out on that? Oh, and quoting Nyerere to justify an attack on multiculturism is pretty pathetic. How multicultural is the UK? At the last census 81.7 per cent of the population identified as 'white.' And who knows about the Sukuma tribe? Islamic scholars helped change the way science developed, for sure, but that was during the Reconquista, six or seven centuries before the period you mention. You assertion that the education system has 'failed' is a unsubstantiated opinion. Oxford consistently ranks in the top three universities in the world and, arguably, Cambridge is better. I have many reservations about the system but 'failed'? Then we get to 'internationalist teachers.' Seriously? What you appear to be suggesting is a one-sided version of history instead of a well-rounded, warts-and-all version. 'International teachers' is simply one of those right-wing buzzphrases that has no meaning. 'Burning our identity and letting it dissipate on the wind.' Vibes, man, vibes. BTW, I'm not middle class and don't have a degree. What I am is a journalist who can see bullshit when it's in front of him. And if you really want to say 'get rid of black people, muslims and johnny foreigner,' just say it. Grow some balls you deluded, semi-educated fool.
The majority of Brits are atheists and this country is in a deep puddle of shit.
How are we doing as a society and I am not advocating for a Christian moral frame work.
Who is the new head of OFSTED?
Religion will play a part in how this country will be run in the near future
The article does not actually say that atheists are idiots. The message is that agnosticism is the only viable option when we consider how little we know and especially how little we know about the phenomenon of seeing and reading this comment, as opposed to the process of seeing and reading it.
I agree that that there must be 'more'. The definition of idiot in the dictionary veers towards someone of no ability and no understanding. They would be closed to other possibilities. But an idiot is also gullible so it is necessary to be skeptical - agnostic.
I see it differently. An agnostic admits they don't know. That means accepting beliefs in others that are not demonstrably or logically false or harmful (in the sense of real, physical or mental damage). In principle an agnostic would have the courage to accept that they do not know. If I go to church and do not 'believe' I do not expect an exemption from any fate a Christian might expect for an unbeliever just because I have gone through the motions of attending church. I am prepared to accept that a Christian may have access to a way of knowing that I do not understand but must be honest with myself and admit to myself that I do not understand.
The problem with atheism is its claim to completeness. This can be summarised as the idea that all phenomena can be explained by processes. This extends to the unknown: even phenomena that we have yet to observe will be explained by processes. A process occurs when one thing interacts with another to change the state of the pair. This leads to ideas such as 'if we build ever more powerful computers they will become conscious' or 'feelings are just chemicals acting on neurons'.
If we have a feeling it is a phenomenon, not a process. Even a mundane feeling like a a sore toe is there, not exactly at my toe but around it. There are no waves of pain flowing from the toe, there is no flow in the phenomenon. It is simply there. Sure, I know about pain receptors, electrical transmission in nerves etc. but the phenomenon is there, in my toe. Processes correlate with the phenomenon but they are not the phenomenon itself. All phenomena CANNOT be explained by processes.
In fact processes only explain the interactions between phenomena. They explain how electric fields repel one electron from another but are silent about the nature of an electron itself. Phenomena are not explained by processes, only the interactions between phenomena are explained by processes.
So there is a really fundamental problem with atheism: functionalism does not provide an understanding of phenomena themselves. It might explain how the light from this screen gets into your eyes and brain but is entirely mute about the phenomena itself that contains these patterns here.
To base one's beliefs on the relations between things rather than on things themselves must be a mistake.
Agnostics do not have a belief in God. An Atheist is someone who not only does not believe in a God but advances reasons for being certain that there is no God. They believe in 'no god'. If the issue were one of lack of belief they could be Agnostics and there would be no need to be Atheist.
In my experience Atheists are functionalists. This certainly applied to Dennett and applies to Dawkins.
As you know, Moral Philosophy is another whole area for contemplation. :)
The Buddhists believe that the stability of a life lived according to moral rules is essential for 'enlightenment'. Utilitarians make morality up as they go. Christians imply it comes from being Christ-like and you wont get into heaven without it... I am with the Buddhists on morality and see it as part of the structure of an adult psyche - this would apply whether or not nirvana exists.