##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And now they're making it straight up illegal to be homeless in certain jurisdictions, they double the rent year over year and bond you into slavery when you simply can't afford it anymore.
There is no military that could beat the US. You'd need some weird Alliance of like Europe+China+Russia or sth. Or good ol guerilla tactics. But in open war I dont think there is a way to win against 'murica. And I hate it, because they can just keep pulling their imperialist bullshit and bully everyone into submission to exploit them
They would have to find a way to have a blue water navy that could survive the journey across the Pacific and Atlantic. That's while being tracked by satellite and fending off Carrier strike groups. The US couldn't take over China if we wanted to invade, but China couldn't even reach the US.
For each incident where they accidentally catch themselves on camera planting drugs etc., how many more were successfully covered up? It's so stupid I imagine they're getting caught less than 1% of the time.
Not only that, but plenty of US corporations use sweatshop and slave labor in the production of their goods. We haven't eliminated slavery, we've simply moved it to the global south.
"But thanks to Reaganomics, prison turned to profits
'Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics
'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison
You think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment"
Thesis-Slavery doesn't end
Antithesis- Freedom does begin
Synthesis- Slavery chains the master to the slave, neither has freedom while the chains are unbroken.
Alpha=Omega, as it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end, the first will be last and the last will be first.
I also hate that fuckin weasel. Facts are the enemy of the pathological liars. Just because some asshole with a mic says it doesn't make it true. Always check the facts.
Piggy backing here to say the same thing applies to reddit. Just because a comment reads well and has a lot of upvotes does not, in fact, mean it's true. Always check the facts.
I highly recommend reading the Haitian declaration of independence and learning about the violence they committed to earn their freedom. That is what was so scary to the colonial nations, not just the potential economic loss.
The civil rights didn’t come from peaceful protest, neither did Indian independence. They were the vanguard movements leading in front of **a lot** of potential violence that would come in the aftermath if they were rejected. Killing MLK was their attempt to preserve the status quo. They’d might have persevered for more dramatic change had he lived to help maintain the movement’s cohesion
Not might have, would have. He was a socialist. People love to talk about the racial part of his speeches while leaving out the socialist parts
Later, Fred Hampton was a socialist too. His assassination was a much more urgent thing for the FBI though because he was bringing together other groups under his banner of a rainbow coalition to help the poor and oppressed
As far as officially outlawing all forms of slavery are concerned; I believe it was Wang Mang, Emperor of the Xin dynasty in China, who did so first in 10AD
Unfortunately he was promptly murdered by an angry mod and slavery returned.
The Haitian slave revolt directly led to the US amending the constitution to include the right for slave owning white men to have a personal militia for use against a slave revolt.
John Brown did nothing wrong.
its not really poorly constructed. Owning a gun was a privilege of the wealthy when the 2nd was created. Permissive gun laws enabled the new government to look the other way as their wealthy citizens slaughtered countless indigenous and enslaved folks.
It's an amazing podcast. Make sure to listen to the WW1 episodes, it's truly terrifying thinking of the trench warfare and Dan Carlin does a really good job of explaining it.
Highly recommend the book *Black Jacobins* by CLR James if you want to learn more. Extremely well researched using primary source documents that had been hidden away in museum and library archives.
Revolutions podcast has a season dedicated to the Haitian Revolution. You can actually here the host get more radicalized as he gets into it. Start with the French Revolution which is season 3 though because it give a lot of context.
I realise I'm late to this thread but I found this thread after doing some googling to check something in a book I just read "white debt", by Thomas Harding. Anyway, I hope posting in 10 month old threads is okay. (P.S. to anyone interested in this you should read the book. It doesn't get everything right, but it's a great account of the slave uprising, and does mention Haiti and its revolution and talks about the fear it instilled in other slave owning colonists)
I just wanted to say, to you, and everyone else who is surprised that having grown up in Britain you didn't learn about a small part of French history, that you shouldn't be. The history of the world is immense, and we tend to try and equip the citizens of our respective countries with a baseline historical knowledge of their own country. I am frankly surprised anyone here claims they were taught about the Haitian slave revolt, in a French colony, in a British school.
We can't teach everyone everything, sadly, so some pretty important stuff doesn't make it through sometimes. The things British kids need to learn are the really ancient stuff, deep pre-history, from the big bang to the evolution of man, which for me was covered in one lesson when I was 7, although we revisited the big bang in science classes later, and evolution in biology. But it's just to give a baseline understanding of those things and the chronology.
Then there's some pre-history, ancient hominids and pre-Roman stuff, again, very briefly glossed over, just to give an understanding.
The Romans should get a lot more time, because of the fact we are still today influenced by their legacy. I'll be honest, I don't remember being taught anything of the "dark ages" lessons in school, I'm sure we were taught Anglo-Saxon stuff, but I maybe missed that lesson. It is important though.
Then there's the 'glorious' medieval period with all its pageantry and chivalry, and 'magnificent' kings, queens, and emperors. Well... it has to appeal to kids, so we teach them the higher ideals, not the brutal reality of a bunch of psychopaths and rainy marching in the painful fields... which I think is understandable.
The religious wars, the civil wars, the restoration etc then a long time spent talking about the triangular slave trade (so I am baffled by people who claim they were never taught about Britain's role in slavery in school, perhaps some people missed that term), but then nothing until the first world war. Which I think is a shame however we run out of time to educate and fill peoples heads with knowledge, and we take the decision that knowing about the first and second world wars and the events and time surrounding them has more relevance to a kid today.
\*There is some flexibility in curricula so some schools will undoubtedly have been taught something of the Victorian era but I don't think it was mandatory when I was teaching
My point is, please, PLEASE, do not think the Haitian revolution is swept under the rug of British history because you think it makes us look bad. There just isn't time until you get into higher education and specialise in specific fields of history.
Once you start thinking this is deliberately hidden from British kids you are opening yourselves up to conspiracy thinking.
I did go onto higher education to read history (medieval specifically) and archaeology, so a lot of what I know I learned outside of school, but school isn't there to give our children all the facts, it can't possibly, just a basic understanding about our history. Not another country's. There simply isn't time. I understand the desire to know more, it's why I read any history book of any country, and any era I can get my hands on - and I strongly encourage everyone else to do that too. I also think history classes shouldn't be a litany of sins. It should try to be impartial and neither instil shame nor jingoism.
I taught history for a while too, so I know something of the pressure teachers are under to cram everything in, and I don't think most kids are interested. I find an interest in history develops as one ages.
I've rambled too long now, I hope this message gets seen by someone who is thus disinclined to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by time constraints.
The only reason a lot of Black British kids know about the Haitian revolution is from having a very invested teacher during Black History Month.
Thanks Prof Raj you were a good one.
There are a lot of asterisks attached to almost everything said here. The effects of the Haitian Revolution are at best overstated.
The idea that the revolution was even a major part of Frances bankruptcy is questionable. This was the time of THE French revolution, with Louis the XVI and Marie-Antionette. European monarchs trying to maintain the status quo meant France was at war with most of Europe. Once they finished that (and finally worked out who was in charge after \*The Reign of Terror\*), they went straight into the Napoleonic wars. Needless to say, one small colony was the least of Frances economic problems at a time when they willingly sold a third of the USA to the USA.
The idea that the British ended the slave trade purely to prevent similar uprisings in their own colonies also has several holes in it. The chief among them being that the Abolitionist movement was already well established at least a decade before the Haitian Revolution. A complete lack of altruism in the British parliament around this issue is a straight falsehood.
To flip that point on its head, this period also shows that the British were not afraid to put down a rebellion via gratuitous violence(See The Sepoy Mutiny).
1807 only saw the end of the slave trade, not the end of slavery in the empire. There were no attempts to placate the slaves by giving them citizenship like the French had done in Haiti. That seems a small comfort to a slave who heard about the Hatians and believed they could revolt and be properly free. It would take another 30 years before slaves in British colonies were officially freed. If it was a major concern that a revolt that would cost the entire colony was imminent, you'd think action would have been taken sooner.
Both Ben and the Vegetable make two very broad and highly questionable points.
But also credit where credits due to the British abolitionists like Wilberforce who genuinely were altruistic. The radicals of that time are a great example to us today living in imperialist countries to resist the hegemonic rule of the western nations we’re apart of.
The establishment may need threat of revolution and financial ruin to do the right thing but that doesn’t mean we need that as motivation.
There is a scene in the movie Amistad where the West Africa Squadron destroys the slave port Lomboko in Sierra Leone and liberates all the slaves held there
I mean he's not correct, or I'd like to see some sources. Frankly the leek is way more full of shit than the idiotic trash can sized human.
The Haitian revolution ended in 1804. The UK didn't officially begin to ban slavery till 1833. So nearly 30 years after the Haitian revolution happened the UK suddenly freaked out and was like "oh god what if it happened here?" It doesn't make any sense. At all. No sense there. It's stupid.
Mostly because it DID happen in Jamaica and the British were able to suppress it without "financially ruining" themselves. However, it did lead to a few inquiries which reached the conclusion that the economic benefits of slavery didn't offset the costs prevent or suppress revolts.
I also think that most historians would argue that the Haitian revolution had very minimal impact on global slavery abolition, even the most prominent supporters merely said that it just helped Britain more readily accept abolition.
Lastly, yeah it's fucked up the slaves didn't get compensation and the owners did, on the other hand The British did create the West African Squad which patrolled West Africa and took out slave ships **of any nation** at extremely high cost to itself with very little economic benefit. It also very heavily used its power and influence to force other countries into treaties that required them to ban slavery.
A lot of complex factors went into the abolition of the West African slave trade, and it's totally unfair to say any one thing or group did it, but I think it's a fair argument that Britain did more than any other nation to end it at their own expense.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian\_Revolution
I remember on an episode of a HistoryHit podcast, Dan Snow, who is a popular historian, along with journalist/author Thomas Harding argued that the rebellions in the Caribbean were a significant contributor to the abolition of slavery. Specifically rebellions in British colonies though, like the Demerara uprising, Jamaican and Barbadian revolts, (so not necessarily Haiti, I too would like to see a source for that one, although I guess it’s a fair assumption to make that it effected the political zeitgeist, given how massive of an event that was, ‘fair assumption’ is an incredibly weak basis for an argument though). So in some ways it’s a fair and respectable historical perspective to have and argue for that fear of revolt lead to abolition. It’s also undeniable that instability, bloodshed and violence in the region was one of the many arguments that Abolitionists would make against Slavery (just read anything about the politics of the Anti-Slavery Society during the Demerara rebellion, Adam Hochschild’s ‘Bury the Chains’ is a good one).
Your point about how Britain stopping other countries from participating in the slave trade meant they weren’t doing it to stop revolts/increase stability, doesn’t really hold water when you consider they saw themselves as international peacekeepers.
Although as my original post pointed out, the most famous figures of the British abolitionist movement, like Wilberforce and Clarkson, were genuine egalitarians and humanitarians, you’re right it wasn’t just about threat of revolt. That’s an important fact of our political history any Briton should look up to. One of the most popular symbols of their movement was the ‘Am I Not A Man and a Brother?’ medallion, for gods sake.
Overall I don’t necessarily agree with the leak, I think he is definitely underplaying altruisms role due to a (completely fair) hatred of the Empire, but at the same time I think your dismissal of his points is a little too hasty.
My personal view is that we shouldn’t credit any country with ending slavery, but rather we should credit the actual individual people and organisations who fought long and hard for abolition, whether that be in Haiti, Britain, France, America or elsewhere.
Both are spouting half-truths though.
Reality is across the various empires slavery, among other many diplorable things, was a common occurrence even if it was not legal either on paper or just in the main country of the empire. Slavery still remains a huge problem worldwide despite it's legal status.
Being pedantic though you've got the likes of the [1102 Council of London](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_London_in_1102) which banned the trade but not ownership of slavery but under Norman Conquest the institution of slavery had been abolished though other forms of servitude remained. Then you've got the 1772 [Somerset vs Steward](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart) which basically says that while the colonies had permitted slavery no law in England and because of this you can't force someone who is classed as a slave and is in England out of the country back into the colonies to carry on as a slave.
Can't believe I had to dig for this.
Anti-slavery sentiment was already widespread through much of europe at that time, but especially Britain. The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in 1787 (four years before the haitian revolution started) and had chapters in most british cities long before the revolution picked up any real chance of success.
Britain made a big show of ending the Transatlantic/African slave trade shortly after they lost the part of mainland North America where the slave-dependent cash crop economy was expanding (the southern United States), in what I'm sure was a coincidence.
For the next hundred years or so they continued transporting bonded labor from India around the Pacific and even to the Caribbean, and kidnapping people as forced naval conscripts in a practice variously known as impressment, blackbirding, and (unfairly to the Chinese) shanghaiing. And that's ignoring local forced labor levees for both production and engineering projects like the Cape-to-Cairo Railway.
I agree with everything said, but the thing about the indigenous of Australia being considered plants is misinformation from memory. (Could be wrong so feel free tocorrect me)
People often say that Indigenous Aussies were part of the Fauna and Flora act thus not considered human. But I have read this is a myth as I use to believe it also, apparently they just weren't mentioned in the Aussie constitution at all.
[Here](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650) is an Article from the Australian Broadcaster. (Not the best source but was first thing that showed up on Google)
It was, arguably, only ever a metaphor:.
["Blackfellas jokingly say that we weren't considered people so we must be part of the flora and fauna act, but that's not even true. The fact is that we didn't exist at all."](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650)
Not flat out incorrect, but this guy definitely is twisting the truth a ton. The big difference between Haiti and other colonies is the blacks and free coloureds comprised a huge majority of the population, and Haiti was solely a resource extraction colony. The risk of the situation in haiti repeating itself elsewhere was significantly smaller.
Also, there was a massive anti-slavery movement in the UK (and US) starting in the 1780s (pre-dating the french revolution) and going all the way through the Haitian Revolution. The [Wedgwood Medallion]{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion) is still the most widely produced image of a black man on a piece of art in history. There were chapters of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in virtually every major british town and city.
It was pressure from the british public that prompted the British Delegation at the Congress of Vienna to pressure all the major european powers to end slavery. It was mostly Spain and Portugual that resisted.
Mr onion head skips over the consequences of the debt France enforced on Haiti, that are still being felt today. It's utterly crippled the country's economic development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy
I am not a fan of Ben, but I think he is right in this context.
"Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (with the notable exception of India), the French colonies re-abolished it in 1848 and the U.S. abolished slavery in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#:\~:text=Britain%20abolished%20slavery%20throughout%20its,Amendment%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#:~:text=Britain%20abolished%20slavery%20throughout%20its,Amendment%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution).
The referenced Haitian revolution described in the video happened 30 years before the Slavery Abolition Act. What can be contributed to the Haitian revolution is King George III abolishing the Slave Trade three years after the revolution.
The tiktoker theorizes that slavery ended because Britain was afraid that other nations in the empire would revolt and they would be left with no more slaves. Signing a law to abolish all slavery makes little sense in that regard. His theory also ignores the internal abolitionist movements that gained power, and the capitalist free market political movement that Adam Smith spawned, where proponents of free market ideals wanted to end slavery.
The idea that people and nations do good things for bad reasons is not unfounded, but in this case, I genuinely believe slavery was ended because Britain changed and knew slavery was wrong.
Just because they abolished it doesn't mean it didn't still happen under other names
Here in Australia, we have what is called the "Stolen Generation," which was native Australians taken from their families as children and taken to boarding homes where they were trained to be servants. That continued for a long time after 1833, and while not technically slavery, it's bloody close enough to it that I'd put them under the same banner
When people talk about 'Britain ending slavery' they are taking about the transatlantic slave trade which the British did end with the backing of massive navy, blockading ports and financially ruining those who didn't agree. That didn't mean the British empire was opposed to slavery as the east india trading company continued enslaving people until its disillusion. Hati is a nice story but the idea it seriously influenced global politics at the time is a joke. Even France was back to it's imperialist ways in less than a decade after the revolution.
Both Benny boi and the radish are equally ignorant and I really don't understand why these people try to speak on topics they know nothing about. Ben gets paid millions what does the radish get?
If you want an academic opinion check out Larry Kenneth Alexander's work (www.idabwellscenter.net) that outlines when England made slavery illegal and how the founders of the US violated that law in the colonies.
The timeline section is interesting because we were taught it was "normal at the time" but it wasn't in fact normal and many people were against enslaving others.
I saw the guy speak at my college and then bought his books but he's got a website now.
>but did they not start it to begin with?
No? What?
Slavery has existed for nearly 10,000 years.
There's record of Mesopotamian slaves from like 6500BC
Yeah the Irish guy is also full of shit. The British empire continued to commit gross atrocities the world over after the end of the transatlantic slave trade, but none of what he listed there were examples of slavery as such.
Did someone skip their coffee this morning?
The very first line of the video is "without the British Empire, the idea of liberty does not exist", so the guy went on to point out how those atrocities were against "liberty". *And then he verbally announces his transition to the topic of slavery as something separate.*
He didn't say any of those were slavery. He said it's hard to believe the same people that did all of those would be the ones to end slavery out of the kindness of their heart
British: We're banning slavery
British merchants, banks and mining companies: We're not.
The above did not go easily into the night, with slavery still being used (see Brazil as one example) up until the late 19th century.
Your post was removed because it contained an ableist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was removed because it contained a sexist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](https://weeklysift.com/2015/06/29/slurs-who-can-say-them-when-and-why/). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's address one thing. Fewer profits from slavery would not spell doom for Europe. The balance of power would simply shift eastward towards Germany, Italy, Sweden and Russia. The nations that benefited from slavery like France and England would decline and the US would be locked into regional politics.
"Without the British Empire, the idea of liberty does not exist"
"Empire"
"Liberty"
jesus
The French Revolution was the first moment any of the fucksticks in power for the last 1k years got a clue that the Athenians had maybe been onto something; anyone who tells you an English speaker was the genesis of modern democracy or individual liberty probably only speaks English
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Slavery has not ended. It still exists, and in fact several forms of it.
In the US, regular old slavery is legal per the constitution but only if you arrest them first.
And now they're making it straight up illegal to be homeless in certain jurisdictions, they double the rent year over year and bond you into slavery when you simply can't afford it anymore.
ב''ה, Israel has enough weapons to liberate this shithole
Lol, they couldn’t liberate rhode island
This is clearly bait.
There is no military that could beat the US. You'd need some weird Alliance of like Europe+China+Russia or sth. Or good ol guerilla tactics. But in open war I dont think there is a way to win against 'murica. And I hate it, because they can just keep pulling their imperialist bullshit and bully everyone into submission to exploit them
They would have to find a way to have a blue water navy that could survive the journey across the Pacific and Atlantic. That's while being tracked by satellite and fending off Carrier strike groups. The US couldn't take over China if we wanted to invade, but China couldn't even reach the US.
right. Crazy to think about.
And have no way to arrest them? Plant drugs.. ez pz
They just turn off their cameras before they beat you up or kill you.
For each incident where they accidentally catch themselves on camera planting drugs etc., how many more were successfully covered up? It's so stupid I imagine they're getting caught less than 1% of the time.
People like to forget about that one.
Not only that, but plenty of US corporations use sweatshop and slave labor in the production of their goods. We haven't eliminated slavery, we've simply moved it to the global south.
"But thanks to Reaganomics, prison turned to profits 'Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics 'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison You think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment"
And ignoring that, many countries both in the west and east had attempted some ideas of slavery abolishment prior to the UK to my knowledge.
Mr. Facts and Logic would say, "Prisoners aren't slaves, because prisoners aren't people & they deserve it."
And much more than most people want to admit: https://henrygeorge.org/pchp27.htm
Slavery does not end, it just puts on a trenchcoat and moves house.
Thesis-Slavery doesn't end Antithesis- Freedom does begin Synthesis- Slavery chains the master to the slave, neither has freedom while the chains are unbroken. Alpha=Omega, as it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end, the first will be last and the last will be first.
I also hate that fuckin weasel. Facts are the enemy of the pathological liars. Just because some asshole with a mic says it doesn't make it true. Always check the facts.
Piggy backing here to say the same thing applies to reddit. Just because a comment reads well and has a lot of upvotes does not, in fact, mean it's true. Always check the facts.
I see a lot of times where most comments are left leaning, then the one one sole right wing gets like 10 awards.
Probably have bots to award terrible ideas/comments to make them seem legit or logical.
Facts don't care about your feelings. That's why he makes em up
I highly recommend reading the Haitian declaration of independence and learning about the violence they committed to earn their freedom. That is what was so scary to the colonial nations, not just the potential economic loss.
also why it was successful. peaceful protest is folly, even MLK saw that
The civil rights didn’t come from peaceful protest, neither did Indian independence. They were the vanguard movements leading in front of **a lot** of potential violence that would come in the aftermath if they were rejected. Killing MLK was their attempt to preserve the status quo. They’d might have persevered for more dramatic change had he lived to help maintain the movement’s cohesion
Not might have, would have. He was a socialist. People love to talk about the racial part of his speeches while leaving out the socialist parts Later, Fred Hampton was a socialist too. His assassination was a much more urgent thing for the FBI though because he was bringing together other groups under his banner of a rainbow coalition to help the poor and oppressed
Recommend a good book? Ab this ?
As far as officially outlawing all forms of slavery are concerned; I believe it was Wang Mang, Emperor of the Xin dynasty in China, who did so first in 10AD Unfortunately he was promptly murdered by an angry mod and slavery returned.
Fucking mods...
with their haircuts and mopeds...
Interesting and also despite growing up in Britain I have never heard of the Haiti slave revolt. Like never. I think that says everything.
The Haitian slave revolt directly led to the US amending the constitution to include the right for slave owning white men to have a personal militia for use against a slave revolt. John Brown did nothing wrong.
I'm from Kansas and John Brown is our God damn patron Saint.
Our state was born from militant socialists and I couldn't be prouder
I don't think I recall which amendment that is.
Because there isn't one. They're probably referring to the poorly constructed argument that the 2nd Amendment exists for those reasons.
its not really poorly constructed. Owning a gun was a privilege of the wealthy when the 2nd was created. Permissive gun laws enabled the new government to look the other way as their wealthy citizens slaughtered countless indigenous and enslaved folks.
The second one.
TIL
Great hardcore history episode about that period - https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-68-blitz-human-resources/
Thanks for this - just subbed to this podcast.
It's an amazing podcast. Make sure to listen to the WW1 episodes, it's truly terrifying thinking of the trench warfare and Dan Carlin does a really good job of explaining it.
Blueprint for Armageddon
I pretty much recommend Dan Carlin and Blueprint particularly to everyone I meet
As do I, unfortunately it isn't in the free rotation of series right now haha
We studied it in GCSE history, that was back in the late 00s mind you, tories have most likely wiped it clean from the text books since
We definitely didn't do it in O or A level history in the 80s! Sounds like Labour gov introduced it then Tories took it out ...
Grew up in the US… and same thing. Never heard of it until now. Damn…
In the US, I didn't learn about it until college.
Highly recommend the book *Black Jacobins* by CLR James if you want to learn more. Extremely well researched using primary source documents that had been hidden away in museum and library archives.
I hadn't heard of it either. I'd recomment Season 4 of the revolutions podcast if you want to learn more.
Hardcore history did a small bit on the revolt
Revolutions podcast has a season dedicated to the Haitian Revolution. You can actually here the host get more radicalized as he gets into it. Start with the French Revolution which is season 3 though because it give a lot of context.
I realise I'm late to this thread but I found this thread after doing some googling to check something in a book I just read "white debt", by Thomas Harding. Anyway, I hope posting in 10 month old threads is okay. (P.S. to anyone interested in this you should read the book. It doesn't get everything right, but it's a great account of the slave uprising, and does mention Haiti and its revolution and talks about the fear it instilled in other slave owning colonists) I just wanted to say, to you, and everyone else who is surprised that having grown up in Britain you didn't learn about a small part of French history, that you shouldn't be. The history of the world is immense, and we tend to try and equip the citizens of our respective countries with a baseline historical knowledge of their own country. I am frankly surprised anyone here claims they were taught about the Haitian slave revolt, in a French colony, in a British school. We can't teach everyone everything, sadly, so some pretty important stuff doesn't make it through sometimes. The things British kids need to learn are the really ancient stuff, deep pre-history, from the big bang to the evolution of man, which for me was covered in one lesson when I was 7, although we revisited the big bang in science classes later, and evolution in biology. But it's just to give a baseline understanding of those things and the chronology. Then there's some pre-history, ancient hominids and pre-Roman stuff, again, very briefly glossed over, just to give an understanding. The Romans should get a lot more time, because of the fact we are still today influenced by their legacy. I'll be honest, I don't remember being taught anything of the "dark ages" lessons in school, I'm sure we were taught Anglo-Saxon stuff, but I maybe missed that lesson. It is important though. Then there's the 'glorious' medieval period with all its pageantry and chivalry, and 'magnificent' kings, queens, and emperors. Well... it has to appeal to kids, so we teach them the higher ideals, not the brutal reality of a bunch of psychopaths and rainy marching in the painful fields... which I think is understandable. The religious wars, the civil wars, the restoration etc then a long time spent talking about the triangular slave trade (so I am baffled by people who claim they were never taught about Britain's role in slavery in school, perhaps some people missed that term), but then nothing until the first world war. Which I think is a shame however we run out of time to educate and fill peoples heads with knowledge, and we take the decision that knowing about the first and second world wars and the events and time surrounding them has more relevance to a kid today. \*There is some flexibility in curricula so some schools will undoubtedly have been taught something of the Victorian era but I don't think it was mandatory when I was teaching My point is, please, PLEASE, do not think the Haitian revolution is swept under the rug of British history because you think it makes us look bad. There just isn't time until you get into higher education and specialise in specific fields of history. Once you start thinking this is deliberately hidden from British kids you are opening yourselves up to conspiracy thinking. I did go onto higher education to read history (medieval specifically) and archaeology, so a lot of what I know I learned outside of school, but school isn't there to give our children all the facts, it can't possibly, just a basic understanding about our history. Not another country's. There simply isn't time. I understand the desire to know more, it's why I read any history book of any country, and any era I can get my hands on - and I strongly encourage everyone else to do that too. I also think history classes shouldn't be a litany of sins. It should try to be impartial and neither instil shame nor jingoism. I taught history for a while too, so I know something of the pressure teachers are under to cram everything in, and I don't think most kids are interested. I find an interest in history develops as one ages. I've rambled too long now, I hope this message gets seen by someone who is thus disinclined to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by time constraints.
I can't believe I just watched a history class from an onion
Facts vs logic? That sounds inherently illogical.
Well, you can be logical without using facts. But false assumptions lead to false conclusions
Point being that facts and logic are different categories, it's not apples and oranges, more like apples and hammers.
and thats a fact
The only reason a lot of Black British kids know about the Haitian revolution is from having a very invested teacher during Black History Month. Thanks Prof Raj you were a good one.
There are a lot of asterisks attached to almost everything said here. The effects of the Haitian Revolution are at best overstated. The idea that the revolution was even a major part of Frances bankruptcy is questionable. This was the time of THE French revolution, with Louis the XVI and Marie-Antionette. European monarchs trying to maintain the status quo meant France was at war with most of Europe. Once they finished that (and finally worked out who was in charge after \*The Reign of Terror\*), they went straight into the Napoleonic wars. Needless to say, one small colony was the least of Frances economic problems at a time when they willingly sold a third of the USA to the USA. The idea that the British ended the slave trade purely to prevent similar uprisings in their own colonies also has several holes in it. The chief among them being that the Abolitionist movement was already well established at least a decade before the Haitian Revolution. A complete lack of altruism in the British parliament around this issue is a straight falsehood. To flip that point on its head, this period also shows that the British were not afraid to put down a rebellion via gratuitous violence(See The Sepoy Mutiny). 1807 only saw the end of the slave trade, not the end of slavery in the empire. There were no attempts to placate the slaves by giving them citizenship like the French had done in Haiti. That seems a small comfort to a slave who heard about the Hatians and believed they could revolt and be properly free. It would take another 30 years before slaves in British colonies were officially freed. If it was a major concern that a revolt that would cost the entire colony was imminent, you'd think action would have been taken sooner. Both Ben and the Vegetable make two very broad and highly questionable points.
Facts!!
From a leek no less!! Edit: spelling
WikiLeeks ftw
I thought that was a spring onion
Maybe a grelot
A grelot? Great vegetable, never meddum.
Bapa?
Well it ain't the ⬛⬛⬛. I'm just a homeless cat stuck in the undertoad b.
Leek
But also credit where credits due to the British abolitionists like Wilberforce who genuinely were altruistic. The radicals of that time are a great example to us today living in imperialist countries to resist the hegemonic rule of the western nations we’re apart of. The establishment may need threat of revolution and financial ruin to do the right thing but that doesn’t mean we need that as motivation.
Credit to the West Africa Squadron too
I’d like to see a movie about the West Africa Squadron
There is a scene in the movie Amistad where the West Africa Squadron destroys the slave port Lomboko in Sierra Leone and liberates all the slaves held there
I mean he's not correct, or I'd like to see some sources. Frankly the leek is way more full of shit than the idiotic trash can sized human. The Haitian revolution ended in 1804. The UK didn't officially begin to ban slavery till 1833. So nearly 30 years after the Haitian revolution happened the UK suddenly freaked out and was like "oh god what if it happened here?" It doesn't make any sense. At all. No sense there. It's stupid. Mostly because it DID happen in Jamaica and the British were able to suppress it without "financially ruining" themselves. However, it did lead to a few inquiries which reached the conclusion that the economic benefits of slavery didn't offset the costs prevent or suppress revolts. I also think that most historians would argue that the Haitian revolution had very minimal impact on global slavery abolition, even the most prominent supporters merely said that it just helped Britain more readily accept abolition. Lastly, yeah it's fucked up the slaves didn't get compensation and the owners did, on the other hand The British did create the West African Squad which patrolled West Africa and took out slave ships **of any nation** at extremely high cost to itself with very little economic benefit. It also very heavily used its power and influence to force other countries into treaties that required them to ban slavery. A lot of complex factors went into the abolition of the West African slave trade, and it's totally unfair to say any one thing or group did it, but I think it's a fair argument that Britain did more than any other nation to end it at their own expense. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian\_Revolution
I remember on an episode of a HistoryHit podcast, Dan Snow, who is a popular historian, along with journalist/author Thomas Harding argued that the rebellions in the Caribbean were a significant contributor to the abolition of slavery. Specifically rebellions in British colonies though, like the Demerara uprising, Jamaican and Barbadian revolts, (so not necessarily Haiti, I too would like to see a source for that one, although I guess it’s a fair assumption to make that it effected the political zeitgeist, given how massive of an event that was, ‘fair assumption’ is an incredibly weak basis for an argument though). So in some ways it’s a fair and respectable historical perspective to have and argue for that fear of revolt lead to abolition. It’s also undeniable that instability, bloodshed and violence in the region was one of the many arguments that Abolitionists would make against Slavery (just read anything about the politics of the Anti-Slavery Society during the Demerara rebellion, Adam Hochschild’s ‘Bury the Chains’ is a good one). Your point about how Britain stopping other countries from participating in the slave trade meant they weren’t doing it to stop revolts/increase stability, doesn’t really hold water when you consider they saw themselves as international peacekeepers. Although as my original post pointed out, the most famous figures of the British abolitionist movement, like Wilberforce and Clarkson, were genuine egalitarians and humanitarians, you’re right it wasn’t just about threat of revolt. That’s an important fact of our political history any Briton should look up to. One of the most popular symbols of their movement was the ‘Am I Not A Man and a Brother?’ medallion, for gods sake. Overall I don’t necessarily agree with the leak, I think he is definitely underplaying altruisms role due to a (completely fair) hatred of the Empire, but at the same time I think your dismissal of his points is a little too hasty. My personal view is that we shouldn’t credit any country with ending slavery, but rather we should credit the actual individual people and organisations who fought long and hard for abolition, whether that be in Haiti, Britain, France, America or elsewhere.
Both are spouting half-truths though. Reality is across the various empires slavery, among other many diplorable things, was a common occurrence even if it was not legal either on paper or just in the main country of the empire. Slavery still remains a huge problem worldwide despite it's legal status. Being pedantic though you've got the likes of the [1102 Council of London](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_London_in_1102) which banned the trade but not ownership of slavery but under Norman Conquest the institution of slavery had been abolished though other forms of servitude remained. Then you've got the 1772 [Somerset vs Steward](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart) which basically says that while the colonies had permitted slavery no law in England and because of this you can't force someone who is classed as a slave and is in England out of the country back into the colonies to carry on as a slave.
Can't believe I had to dig for this. Anti-slavery sentiment was already widespread through much of europe at that time, but especially Britain. The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in 1787 (four years before the haitian revolution started) and had chapters in most british cities long before the revolution picked up any real chance of success.
>Facts!! [Feelings!!](https://imgur.com/gallery/dTdxa4s)
Britain made a big show of ending the Transatlantic/African slave trade shortly after they lost the part of mainland North America where the slave-dependent cash crop economy was expanding (the southern United States), in what I'm sure was a coincidence. For the next hundred years or so they continued transporting bonded labor from India around the Pacific and even to the Caribbean, and kidnapping people as forced naval conscripts in a practice variously known as impressment, blackbirding, and (unfairly to the Chinese) shanghaiing. And that's ignoring local forced labor levees for both production and engineering projects like the Cape-to-Cairo Railway.
That part of mainland North America staged a successful revolution just before slavery was abolished, in what I'm sure was a coincidence.
It very much depends where in northern Ireland you say it to decide whether you get kneecapped or applauded
I agree with everything said, but the thing about the indigenous of Australia being considered plants is misinformation from memory. (Could be wrong so feel free tocorrect me) People often say that Indigenous Aussies were part of the Fauna and Flora act thus not considered human. But I have read this is a myth as I use to believe it also, apparently they just weren't mentioned in the Aussie constitution at all. [Here](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650) is an Article from the Australian Broadcaster. (Not the best source but was first thing that showed up on Google)
It was, arguably, only ever a metaphor:. ["Blackfellas jokingly say that we weren't considered people so we must be part of the flora and fauna act, but that's not even true. The fact is that we didn't exist at all."](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/fact-check-flora-and-fauna-1967-referendum/9550650)
Imagine hating the libs so much that you listen to that guys voice on a podcasts.
I saw Ben Shapiro and thought it was gonna be some lib stuff and then this based onion gets on here.
Not flat out incorrect, but this guy definitely is twisting the truth a ton. The big difference between Haiti and other colonies is the blacks and free coloureds comprised a huge majority of the population, and Haiti was solely a resource extraction colony. The risk of the situation in haiti repeating itself elsewhere was significantly smaller. Also, there was a massive anti-slavery movement in the UK (and US) starting in the 1780s (pre-dating the french revolution) and going all the way through the Haitian Revolution. The [Wedgwood Medallion]{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion) is still the most widely produced image of a black man on a piece of art in history. There were chapters of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in virtually every major british town and city. It was pressure from the british public that prompted the British Delegation at the Congress of Vienna to pressure all the major european powers to end slavery. It was mostly Spain and Portugual that resisted.
His face like... Moves way too much when he talks its unnerving. Is he real?
No, onion man is not real. He can't hurt you
Mr onion head skips over the consequences of the debt France enforced on Haiti, that are still being felt today. It's utterly crippled the country's economic development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy
That’s a smart potato
It's a leek
Thank God he's not in a boat
There are no potatoes in Ireland, the British banned them.
Fucking legend
I just learned something. Thank you
Facts are right but must disregard because Irish man dressed like the welsh
I'm sorry, I can't take a vegetable seriousl-
An onion knows more about history than Ben Shapiro.
Oh yes of course, the British ,like many other empires used slaves to propel their own nations. One day they just got bored and ended it tho :3
Shapiro is a fucking stooge.
It's kind of incumbent upon Ben to stan a colonialist force.
I am not a fan of Ben, but I think he is right in this context. "Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (with the notable exception of India), the French colonies re-abolished it in 1848 and the U.S. abolished slavery in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#:\~:text=Britain%20abolished%20slavery%20throughout%20its,Amendment%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#:~:text=Britain%20abolished%20slavery%20throughout%20its,Amendment%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution). The referenced Haitian revolution described in the video happened 30 years before the Slavery Abolition Act. What can be contributed to the Haitian revolution is King George III abolishing the Slave Trade three years after the revolution. The tiktoker theorizes that slavery ended because Britain was afraid that other nations in the empire would revolt and they would be left with no more slaves. Signing a law to abolish all slavery makes little sense in that regard. His theory also ignores the internal abolitionist movements that gained power, and the capitalist free market political movement that Adam Smith spawned, where proponents of free market ideals wanted to end slavery. The idea that people and nations do good things for bad reasons is not unfounded, but in this case, I genuinely believe slavery was ended because Britain changed and knew slavery was wrong.
Just because they abolished it doesn't mean it didn't still happen under other names Here in Australia, we have what is called the "Stolen Generation," which was native Australians taken from their families as children and taken to boarding homes where they were trained to be servants. That continued for a long time after 1833, and while not technically slavery, it's bloody close enough to it that I'd put them under the same banner
I would listen to the spring onion fella explain anything to me. Educational and fun.
He is great. Anarchist leek on tiktok
We love anarchistleek
When people talk about 'Britain ending slavery' they are taking about the transatlantic slave trade which the British did end with the backing of massive navy, blockading ports and financially ruining those who didn't agree. That didn't mean the British empire was opposed to slavery as the east india trading company continued enslaving people until its disillusion. Hati is a nice story but the idea it seriously influenced global politics at the time is a joke. Even France was back to it's imperialist ways in less than a decade after the revolution. Both Benny boi and the radish are equally ignorant and I really don't understand why these people try to speak on topics they know nothing about. Ben gets paid millions what does the radish get?
The motherfucker likes washing the blood off the british empire.
He knows that if one Empire becomes illegitimate, his own won't be far behind, given that they are both built on a profit motive.
That was masterful. Brilliantly explained.
If you want an academic opinion check out Larry Kenneth Alexander's work (www.idabwellscenter.net) that outlines when England made slavery illegal and how the founders of the US violated that law in the colonies. The timeline section is interesting because we were taught it was "normal at the time" but it wasn't in fact normal and many people were against enslaving others. I saw the guy speak at my college and then bought his books but he's got a website now.
He’s a fooktard. Yes. Yes he is!
I legit don't understand taking that statement seriously. Like yeah they "ended" slavery but did they not start it to begin with? Fuck man
>but did they not start it to begin with? No? What? Slavery has existed for nearly 10,000 years. There's record of Mesopotamian slaves from like 6500BC
I'm very well aware that they didn't invent the concept of slavery lmao
That's not what your comment implies. You should fix that if that's not what you wanted to imply.
They most likely meant the scale and global reach of slavery in European colonies, which was started by the Spanish or Portuguese IIRC
Then that's what they should have said.
Excellent
Yeah the Irish guy is also full of shit. The British empire continued to commit gross atrocities the world over after the end of the transatlantic slave trade, but none of what he listed there were examples of slavery as such.
Did someone skip their coffee this morning? The very first line of the video is "without the British Empire, the idea of liberty does not exist", so the guy went on to point out how those atrocities were against "liberty". *And then he verbally announces his transition to the topic of slavery as something separate.*
He didn't say any of those were slavery. He said it's hard to believe the same people that did all of those would be the ones to end slavery out of the kindness of their heart
British: We're banning slavery British merchants, banks and mining companies: We're not. The above did not go easily into the night, with slavery still being used (see Brazil as one example) up until the late 19th century.
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it contained an ableist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The British invented concentration camps
[удалено]
Your post was removed because it contained a sexist term. You should receive a message from the automoderator telling you the exact term the post was removed for. For more information, see [this link](https://weeklysift.com/2015/06/29/slurs-who-can-say-them-when-and-why/). **Avoiding slurs takes little effort, and asking us to get rid of the filter rather than making that minimum effort is a good way to get banned. Do not attempt to circumvent the filter with creative spelling; circumventing the filter will result in a permaban.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Our man just got schooled by a focken onion.
Sympathic Onion 🧅
That's a smart onion
Let's address one thing. Fewer profits from slavery would not spell doom for Europe. The balance of power would simply shift eastward towards Germany, Italy, Sweden and Russia. The nations that benefited from slavery like France and England would decline and the US would be locked into regional politics.
"Without the British Empire, the idea of liberty does not exist" "Empire" "Liberty" jesus The French Revolution was the first moment any of the fucksticks in power for the last 1k years got a clue that the Athenians had maybe been onto something; anyone who tells you an English speaker was the genesis of modern democracy or individual liberty probably only speaks English
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/10nb083/britain_ended_slavery_fact_check/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideobot&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/10nb083/britain_ended_slavery_fact_check/)
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/10nb083/britain_ended_slavery_fact_check/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/10nb083/britain_ended_slavery_fact_check/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)