I blogged this mainly because I like the title of the article.
For me the main issue with the topic of slavery is: how come it is constantly used by leftist anti-imperialists to browbeat empire and capitalism, when in fact the British Empire should be praised to the rafters for what was one of the greatest acts of altruism in history.
Oh, and then what about the fact that the Saudis did not abolish slavery till the 1960s etc etc.
'how come it is constantly used by leftist anti-imperialists to browbeat empire and capitalism, when in fact the British Empire should be praised to the rafters for what was one of the greatest acts of altruism in history.'
That's an interesting question. The answer might be that the abolition of slavery doesn't fit neatly into the 'left-wing' anti-imperialist view of the world. According to the Black American academic Thomas Sowell 'the principal impetus for the abolition of slavery came first from very conservative religious activists' moreover alot of African, Arab and Asian countries bitterly resented Europe enforcing a global abolition of slavery. Take this example, in 1849 the British Navy entered Brazilian waters and destroyed Brazilian ships used in the slave trade. A Brazilian friend told me that they have an expression that originated from that period which roughly translates as 'doing something for the english' (it means doing something just for show) The expression refers to when the Brazilian slave traders would try to hide the slaves away out of the sight of the British inspecting their ships.
Regarding the Aarovovitch article I find the comparison he makes between the abolition of slavery and the Iraq invasion a bit self serving. I understand why he sees some parallels though, Thomas Sowell (again) writes in his essay on 'The real History of Slavery' : 'On the issue of slavery, it was essentially Western civilization against the world. At the time, Western civilization had the power to previal against all other civilizations. That is how and why slavery was destroyed as an institution in almost the whole world'.
1. I'm 100% sure the unwillingness of the left to praise the British Empire for the abolition of slavery is because it is for them an icon of evil.
2. Correction: it wasn't Western civilisation that had the power to impose its will over the abolition of slavery. It was, specifically, the British Empire. They were opposed by large parts of Western civilisation, as well as by large parts (most?) of non-Western civilisation too.
JP, you're right it is more accurate to say the British Empire initiated and drove through the abolition of slavery. Other western countries did indeed oppose it at first but eventually worked in concert with the British Empire to help enforce the abolition of slavery around the world. Heck, even pragmatic France turned against slavery in time and sent warships to patrol the Atlantic to deter and intercept slave ships.
Some writers on the left argue that there was nothing altruistic about the Empire abolishing slavery and that it simply suited the Empire's commercial interests to do so at that time. (JP this is an arguement used by our Brazilian friend, Brazil who incidently have a very poor record on slavery). The fact is that the British Empire abolished slavery at imense cost to itself: The British compensated slave owners for what was legally the confiscation of their property, which cost £20 million about 5% of nation's annual output; other costs to Britian included bribes paid to Spain and Portugal to ensure their cooperation, not to mention the military costs of patrolling the seas for years.
5 comments:
I blogged this mainly because I like the title of the article.
For me the main issue with the topic of slavery is: how come it is constantly used by leftist anti-imperialists to browbeat empire and capitalism, when in fact the British Empire should be praised to the rafters for what was one of the greatest acts of altruism in history.
Oh, and then what about the fact that the Saudis did not abolish slavery till the 1960s etc etc.
Islamic slavery
'how come it is constantly used by leftist anti-imperialists to browbeat empire and capitalism, when in fact the British Empire should be praised to the rafters for what was one of the greatest acts of altruism in history.'
That's an interesting question. The answer might be that the abolition of slavery doesn't fit neatly into the 'left-wing' anti-imperialist view of the world. According to the Black American academic Thomas Sowell 'the principal impetus for the abolition of slavery came first from very conservative religious activists' moreover alot of African, Arab and Asian countries bitterly resented Europe enforcing a global abolition of slavery. Take this example, in 1849 the British Navy entered Brazilian waters and destroyed Brazilian ships used in the slave trade. A Brazilian friend told me that they have an expression that originated from that period which roughly translates as 'doing something for the english' (it means doing something just for show) The expression refers to when the Brazilian slave traders would try to hide the slaves away out of the sight of the British inspecting their ships.
Regarding the Aarovovitch article I find the comparison he makes between the abolition of slavery and the Iraq invasion a bit self serving. I understand why he sees some parallels though, Thomas Sowell (again) writes in his essay on 'The real History of Slavery' : 'On the issue of slavery, it was essentially Western civilization against the world. At the time, Western civilization had the power to previal against all other civilizations. That is how and why slavery was destroyed as an institution in almost the whole world'.
1. I'm 100% sure the unwillingness of the left to praise the British Empire for the abolition of slavery is because it is for them an icon of evil.
2. Correction: it wasn't Western civilisation that had the power to impose its will over the abolition of slavery. It was, specifically, the British Empire. They were opposed by large parts of Western civilisation, as well as by large parts (most?) of non-Western civilisation too.
JP, you're right it is more accurate to say the British Empire initiated and drove through the abolition of slavery. Other western countries did indeed oppose it at first but eventually worked in concert with the British Empire to help enforce the abolition of slavery around the world. Heck, even pragmatic France turned against slavery in time and sent warships to patrol the Atlantic to deter and intercept slave ships.
Some writers on the left argue that there was nothing altruistic about the Empire abolishing slavery and that it simply suited the Empire's commercial interests to do so at that time. (JP this is an arguement used by our Brazilian friend, Brazil who incidently have a very poor record on slavery). The fact is that the British Empire abolished slavery at imense cost to itself: The British compensated slave owners for what was legally the confiscation of their property, which cost £20 million about 5% of nation's annual output; other costs to Britian included bribes paid to Spain and Portugal to ensure their cooperation, not to mention the military costs of patrolling the seas for years.
I'd love to see Socialist Worker types wrestling with this one:
Cherokees eject slave descendants
BBC News
04/03/07
Post a Comment