Did you get History Matters permission to post this?

Thanks for this. When was it originally uploaded?

@@Halbared originally uploaded May 22, 2019

@MitchTheYoshi Are you referring to Countryballs' video? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b9GdldiV0dq3gqs.html

Unless you've had History Matters permission to post this, it should be rightfully demonetized.

The first one's free.....

And you know shoot them if they don’t want it

That one really got me

@@MT-ic7ub Housing and feeding them wasn’t free though

1. Tea trade generates more revenue for the govt. 2. They peddle the same drugs on domestic market. "War on drugs" is a relatively recent thing, drugs used to be legal in many western nations (including UK).

Fair reasoning ngl

@@fenard do you mean 1794?

Slavery was abolish in 1794 in France. And then for economic reason and war, slavery was reestablished under Napoléon. That's why Haiti became independant.

@@guillaumehervouet9293 Bad move on Haiti's part.

@@dannyarcher6370 why?

That's something that needs to be remembered. I think a lot of people in the present day criticize people of the past for not going far enough, or not doing enough, with out realizing there's a limit to how much you could do realistically and continue to make any kind of progress.

This is especially self-inflicted difficult, you basically have free labor! And you threw it away.... yet people nowadays stain the name of these Western nations who got rid of slavery - yet look at Africa and Southeast Asia now... chaos upon chaos including child labor and authoritarianism

​@@sdhubbard There's a concept presented recently that in the right place with the right factors... a self-righteous activist today could easily be a Pro-Nazi and anti-versailles treaty activist 😅

​@@sdhubbard Exactly! judging the actions and culture of the past using a present day mindset is one of the biggest moral follies quite a few folks indulge in when talking about how horrible history was. Still sad "modern" slavery is a thing though with an estimated 12 million (potentially over 20 million in total) people around the world being forcefully treated like pets or possessions (tbh most dogs and cats get more love than human slaves) and due to the current lose lose political climate very little can be done to end it without many going "wah foreign interference" yet rich/powerful nations will still get moaned at for not doing enough while getting guilt tripped too. It's pretty easy to criticize the past and present actions of other's when you're not in the position of accountability (usually by choice, something slaves don't have).

Not sure where this idea comes from, but slavery was never a practice everyone engaged in. Only a subset of the rich really participated in it. And chattle slavery has never existed in various parts of europe.

That's how we roll 😎

Lets gooooo

Like father, like son.

That's what all superpowers do

@@bigbootros4362 Britain took it to a new level, though.

😂

Ahhh the comment I was looking for

No, the government borrowing will have been via the issue of Consols. These were government bonds with no final redemption date, although the government typically had the option to redeem them after a set period. The rate of interest, normally 2 1/2%, was low by subsequent historical standards. After the 2008 financial crisis, when interest rates were cut and Quantitative Easing introduced, the rate of interest on new issues of long UK government bonds fell to very low levels, and it was worthwhile for the government to redeem Consols and eg War Loan, the World War 1 debt which had an interest rate of 3 1/2%, and issue new bonds at a lower rate. It's a bit misleading to suggest that it was only after 2010 that the government had the means to repay the debt, since by then Consols and War Loan were a tiny fraction of total government debt. But it was only in that period that it was worthwhile for the government to do so.

@@faramir Even if interest rate is higher (eg 3.5%) its still cheaper and has less effect on macroeconomics than paying in full

@@faramir Its important to think of this on a termly basis (eg a year) for the country, if debits and credits are in balance with lots of money being put into the economy on a termly basis this will benefit employment, interest and inflation rates and prevent financial crashes and slumps so the net benefits support the economy and its growth

👍

0:27 *Bender: Neat!*

E

OH MY FUCKING GOD FIRST ON REDDIT THEN KZfaq??? STOP BRING EVERYWHERE

@@bernd_das_brot6911 Know go on a random video with the top comment being Pixelcraftian

xD

I was thinking why their views dropped??

i didn't even notice it wasn't history matters until i reead your comment lol

@@Yash-ck1uo haha

@@alaaali7635 HA

The Aussies had it particularly rough, if your harness wasn’t on properly then they just fell off the earth, lots of good convicts lost to that 😢

We Vietnamese had it rough, people keep calling mangoes and drafonfruits exotic fruits

Yeah the but most of the list was incorrect. The correct list is: 1. Abolishing slavery 2. Beating France 3. Beating France 4. Beating France 5. Beating France 6. Beating France 7. Beating France 8. Beating France 9. Beating Germany 10. Beating Spain

@@cones914 you forgot beating the USA 1806

Very Funny

Brazil: ....

Portugal: *Laughs evilly*

America: sweat nervously

Romans: Noobs, we sold as many slaves every 25 years as the entire transatlantic slave trade in its entire history.

I just read how the British helped to kill 3 million Indonesians in the 60s because they were left wing. Britain has always managed to shake off blame and historical guilt.

I'm pretty sure the industrial revolution had something to do with America ending slavery as well. Not only was the industrialized north much more economically and militarily powerful than the agricultural south, but the factory owners stood to benefit a great deal from the effect an influx of free labor from the plantations would have on wages and the market value of labor.

@@thomasbravado the 750,000 war dead in America probably helped also...

Then why did it cost in repayments until 2015? Luckily we didnt offer to pay off the Arabian Slave Trade.

@@MARSBELLA1 Is Britain in Arabia?

Then why did Britain put an end to slavery within Africa, preventing tribes from taking members of other tribes, and use them as slaves. Africa had no competition. Britain could have enslaved and profited if they wanted to.

if what you say is even remotely true, then why did the British bother paying for slaves to be freed as well as policing the seas at tremendous cost??

@@Makotonine the paid slaveowners recompense for freed slaves to mitigate political backlash from a group of wealthy people. The West Africa Squadron and its anti slavery patrols started primarily as a way to attack French interests, they were empowered to stop and search any ship under enemy flag for slaves during the Napoleonic Wars. The West African Squadron was also fairly ineffective in its early decades. It wasn't until the last thirty years or so that they became a significant force against the slave trade. This was after the British began dominating the seas and had ended slavery in its own empire. I would say this is less altruistic and more a cynical move to reinforce themselves as the global sea power and to stop other empires from using slavery to get ahead of them. Regardless, none of this contradicts the idea that slave rebellions were a driving force behind abolition.

@@GuapoG0tGuap TLDR. I'm guessing from your name that you simply don't like whites, and will say anything to disparage their notable achievements. I bet you even live in the West too, lol!

@@GuapoG0tGuap cuz ur a bigot

@@Makotonine because it’s just one factor among many that contributed to abolition. Read.

🙏

Nah

​@@jamesbissonette8002 the man the myth the legend . . .

I’m fairly sure almost all of the big anti-slavery legislation happened before 1832. I was under the impression that the influx of Irish MPs from the recant integration of Ireland into the union (1801) that tipped the scales in the abolitionist’s favour. I don’t doubt, though, that the reform act of 1832 help keep the movement going.

@@zachpaterson2585 No the act of abolition was in 1833. The slave trade was outlawed in 1807 which is well after the union. The Irish MP’s tended to be very Tory so didn’t make much difference. Up till 1828 they are all Protestant as is the majority of the electorate. Many of them would have had slaves and/or other property in the West Indies as well. Once the reform act is passed one of the first bills before the new parliament was the abolition bill. In fact the abolition movement became one of the stronger forces pushing for parliamentary reform as a way of shifting the parliamentary balance in favour of abolition.

Abolition was I think the first major moment when a moral decision was made on a purely humanistic basis, rather than justified on religious principles. Because remember, none of the major religions had anything bad to say about slavery. And yet many different people from many different backgrounds came to the conclusion that it was a bad thing that had to stop.

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Christianity definitely condemned slavery, and it was almost entirely Christians who led the charge to end the slave trade

@Zach Paterson That’s a very revisionist attitude to take.

I laughed like hell at that. Thank you.

and evolution, I don't wanna go back to the primordial soup

Wait, we didn't invent gravity?

@@boundedsleet6262 sir issac newton invented gravity . And he is from Britain

no, king george invented gravity

And my Hm iceberg

​@@bottomgear4055 link

​@@bottomgear4055 James bisonette would be tier 2

As a non American I do not hear a lot about it but I agree

Quakers were behind the push to end slavery in Britain and in the U.S. Once slavery ended for both, the governments then started to apply political pressure to anyone they traded with. This caused the American Indians such as Chickasaw and Choctaw to abolish slavery in 1866. Essentially if you wished to conduct trade with the UK or US, you had to end slavery.

The last country to formally abolish slavery was Mauritania... IN 1981!!! Edit: 2007* Many thanks to those correcting me on the subject

@@matthewshipley739 and we are still waiting on the USA to fully end it.

@@Kathdath What you mean?

seems on-point. The French sometimes still view it the same way. Like, I believe that during the first year of the second world war, the French had a couple of high officers who send more time and effort of (bureaucratic) fighting with the Brits out of anti-England sentiment then they did on the Germans.

Does it depend on what the slaves are doing? Like cotton is considered a cash crop after the cotton gin. Or Tobacco vs farming? I’m generally asking i haven’t read the book.

@@JL_Lux it's kind of hard to summarize on this platform. The cotton industry was much later during the industrial revolution. At the time of writing, Mr. Smith used the Virginia Tobacco farming and the sugar plantations (which sugar still uses slave labor today in the Dominican Republic) of the west indies. The stat he gave for his time is a paid laborer will produce the same amount of work of 6 slaves. Slaves are also very expensive to house, feed and you have to hire expensive overseers to manage the slaves. Slavery was an undesirable necessity wherever there was a shortage of paid labor available. That remains true today when you look at the industries that rely on slave labor today. Chocolate on the Ivory Coast of Africa, sugar in the Dominican Republic, rice, coffee, mining, etc. This is not a good enough explanation by any means. I'm unable to put my hands on my copy of the book to give you a better idea as to where to look if you're not interested in reading the whole book. I think there is an index. I definitely encourage you to look for yourself. There's a lot of detail that most people today never think of.

@@OATMEALCMC oh ok thank you for the explanation.

@@JL_Lux also its pretty lógical to see many slaves protested by being way too ineficient at their job purposefully. Working slow, losing/stealing stuff, punishing the tools etc

This isn't quite right, making slavery _illegal_ is based in ethics. Even if slaves supposedly cost more, that's just a reason for an individual person to use paid labor, not a reason for your government to make slavery _illegal_. And if it was economically preferred, Britain wouldn't have incurred so much debt by paying off the losses by people having to pay salaries. Of course, in places like India and the American South, it was harder to make it illegal, since the difference in cost between having to pay for labor and having slaves was extremely high. The decreased economic value of slaves makes it _easier_ to make illegal, for sure.

It's truly astounding. Modern European civilisations are judged harshly due to their brutal history using the exact moral foundations that were conceived within them and used to progress beyond that history. The very moral compasses people use to shit on Europe only exist because of Europe.

I'm sure the slave rebellions in British territories had nothing to do with it at all.

@Orsino I assume the "slavery" you're referring to is the poor working conditions in regions like Africa and Asia. The fact that you refer to low-quality voluntary employment in such a way is extremely insidious. The very real slavery that exists today is of specific sections of the labour force in China and the practical imprisonment of Indian and Pakistani workers in places like Dubai. Need you be reminded that these are sovereign states? European nations have no ability to alter the laws of these nations, and any attempt to do so would likely invite comparisons to modern day Imperialism.

Economics played a huge role on the abolition of slavery Britain didn't abolish slavery simply because of ethics. Basically, slaves don't have salaries, so they can't buy any goods, specifically british goods, by enforcing slavery to be illegal in their own country they could force other countries to also abolish slavery without facing too much repercussions of it being hypocritical. The slaves in other countries, after freed, can work for a salary and buy british goods, since they were the production powerhouse after the industrial revolution and had the best consumer goods, simple as that

​@@computerbr9344 I never said it was purely ethical. I'm merely tired of assertions such as yours that there was some universally adhered to geopolitical conspiracy to use slavery as an end. There's a reason the slave trade was forbidden in 1807, but not slavery itself. The products of slave labour were still very important to the British economy at the time. Regardless, the Parliament voted in favour of a limitation to any further growth of slave industries. This is of course while slave labour is immensely profitable. You should also keep in mind that abolitionists were present in parliament far earlier than 1807. Wilberforce presented his first act for the abolition of the trade in 1791. Realistically, abolition may have come much sooner if not for the fact that many of the older MPs in 1807 themselves owned plantations. You could argue that their reluctance to abandon the practice at the time arose from private financial concerns rather than any qualms about the effect abolition would have on the British economy at large. By 1833 the House of Commons was so prepared to abolish slavery that it voted to do so with no opposition. This is not because there was some grand conspiracy to manipulate the global economy, but because the already colossal British Economy could continue to dominate just fine without slaves. Slavery, between 1790 and 1830, ceased to be a necessary evil for the maintenance of a powerful state that could compete with the other Great powers.

you mean the preacher Charles Spurgeons

Loss profits???? After facilitating the slave trade for 400 years

@@plntycash Before I answer your question, please understand that I am in no way justifying or accepting slavery here. I am describing the views of the time and the issues that needed to be solved. This is a historical period that is often misunderstood by the public, charged as it is with political opinion and rhetoric. My intention is to avoid both and relate the facts as seen by those who lived in the era. In much of the 16 and 1700's Great Britain was as close to an unregulated free market economy as was possible for the time. So, yes, 'profits' were an issue when Abolition started getting attention. Be it the East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company or any of the other chartered royal enterprises, their job was to squeeze as much revenue for the Crown and themselves out of their territories and if that meant enslaving the natives, then so be it. The logic of the time was threefold: - The Empire was expensive to run and getting free labor out of the 'natives' it was protecting seemed like little enough to ask; - There was the 'Cult of Muscular Christianity', as Kipling put it, or the 'White Man's Burden' to 'civilize' the colored races through Protestantism, Limited Democracy, and Respect for the Crown; - Lastly, forced labor was something that had simply not yet gone out of style. Even in England proper, there were families tied to each other by ancient feudal obligations that required the poorer family to labor for the wealthier for a set number of days a year. There were whole voting districts owned and operated by noble families [called 'rotten boroughs'] where every person within it was obliged to vote according to the wishes of the Lord that held that manor. With all that history behind it arguing for a continuation of forced labor /slavery, it's actually pretty amazing that abolishing it throughout the Empire cost as little bloodshed as it did. But again, those monetary costs were paid largely by squeezing the Indian subcontinent and via the Chinese Opium Trade.

@@carlhicksjr8401 still disnt explain how slavery was unprofitable? Especially since france and portugal were still booming after britains “end”

@@plntycash Britain, being a democracy... or at least 'more democratic than the rest of Europe' anyway... was unusually sensitive to public opinion from voters. As Abolition got going as a major issue in Parliament, it brought up issues that the UK governments of the era DID NOT want on the front page of the news. Things like the plight of Ireland /Irish Nationalism, conditions in Welsh coal mines, the dumping of English criminals to penal colonies in Australia and other aspects of the Industrial Revolution that successive Sovereigns and Royal Governments did not want to explode all over the place. When compared to keeping the Irish under control, slavery... and by this I specifically mean Black slavery [Abolition did nothing for the Indian peasants or Welsh coal miners or children laboring in factories]... was relatively easy to abolish. The governments could say to the voting public [the only subjects of the Empire Parliament cared about], 'See, we really ARE benevolent!' But it should still be clearly said that the first major government in the world to abolish slavery was the United Kingdom [which was a separate political entity than the British Empire]. Parliament really did begin the process of defining chattel slavery as a social and economic evil, credit where it's due. The big difference between the British Empire and the US on the issue, was that the Empire simply had more money to compensate slave owners for lost 'property'. Slavery wasn't the economic lynch-pin that it was in the Southern US and didn't provide even 10% of the British economy [again, that's chattel slavery rather than forced tenet farmer labor], whereas when first shots were fired at Ft. Sumter, SC in 1861, slavery produced something along the line of 35% of the US GDP. And that's not even getting into the dispossessing of the educated and propertied class of literally half the nation. As for France, which 'France' are we talking about? From 1700-1900 there was damned near a dozen 'French Governments' of one kind or another, each with their own peculiar definition of what 'France' or 'French' was. There were French governments in the 1800's that were rampantly anti-slavery, but still Imperial as Hell. Damned near every French Republic between 1870 and War One was 'anti-slavery' but never disciplined any Army or Navy officer that increased French colonial holdings even when that officer had specific orders [not 'instructions'... ORDERS] not to do so. France has long been governed by an intense jealousy of the British Empire and spent 300 years making a half-assed attempt at copying it. As for Portugal, other than Emperor Pedro of Brazil dictating the Golden Law of 1863, I'm not very well informed on Portugal's history with slavery. Let me repeat to you, that at no point in this discussion am I excusing or agreeing with slavery. I am trying to accurately relate the economic and political issues of time, not justifying it. Social progress is just that: **Progress** You can't judge someone who has not had benefit of progress by modern standards. All of mankind has kept slaves... be they war captives, criminals, or simply foreigners every single ethnic group has compelled unpaid labor under cruel conditions from others. In the last 150 years, we've generally grown out of that, although some people [many African tribes, a lot of Muslim countries, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc.] still haven't gotten the message. But judging the past by modern standards completely invalidates all the work from all the people who made things like child labor, genocide, slavery, and other social ills things worth abolishing for the betterment of everyone. This is the danger of revisionism... by the time those who think they can recast history in their own image are done, we no longer have any heroes and nobody ever does anything 'good' because somebody has decided to label them 'evil' for modern political reasons.

Blah blah blah blah blah

Austria (more Hungary actually) and Russia had a serf system which by the early 1800s was equally as cruel as the US South's system. Alexander II wouldn't come into power in Russia until 1855 and his liberation-decree was 1861 (beating out the Emancipation Proclamation by two years).

Well said

An excellent point.

Good point Sir. Good point

You can't credit Britain with abolishing slavery when the western world is responsible for the Atlantic slave trade and the commodification of people for profit on a widespread scale, even after the supposed "abolition of slavery." It's also wild to me that people give "the west" credit for abolishing slavery when the first nation on Earth to abolish slavery was Haiti. A country which was ostracized and destroyed by "the west" and then put into debt bondage for rebelling. A lot of Britain's "chasing slave traders" was also just measly justifications for imperialism and colonialization. The abolition of slavery came primarly from the slaves themselves.

And still is today. There are an estimated 30 million child slaves in Africa and an estimated I think it’s around 50 million in the Middle East

I appreciate it!

Does anyone know why he took it down??

@@Cryozebra Probably cos of the sensitive topic

​@@matthewshipley739only the wokies would find it such. It doesn't fit in to their vision of 'britain bad'.

@@Whoami691 read the pinned comment, not everything is done because of THE WOKE NEW WORLD ORDER A BRAVE NEW FARENHEIT 1984

🙏

Thank you for the kind comment!

Aside from the video failing to answer the question in the title, this comment suggests the more interesting question, "Why, since Britons were proud that slavery had withered in Albion, was slavery ever allowed in the British colonies". I realise making such a video might be problematic in the current environment of financial censorship by Alpabet Inc. Britons should take a stand against such tyranny.

@@janesda Sovereignty + Selfishness

@@PastPresentedBy that are you referring to the board of Alphabet Inc?

@@janesda Alphabet have vast power, but not sovereignty. Early British colonists had quite a lot of sovereignty, and were selfish enough to exploit it as much as possible

Many views

I try my best 🙏

For me the fact the drug dealers had an empire to back up their business is scary not comforting

The myth of civilization

Well we weren't very civilised to China. we fought 2 wars with them to force them to sell our drugs & we also forced indian farmers to stop growing crops & grow opium. That ended up with 2 million dead Indians....

Leftists Propaganda

And they still don't talk about the Arab slave trade

@@Hans-rd9lf The Trans Atlantic slave trade was much more horrific and the Europens paying and shipping them over to the new world largely knew this, in much of the Arabic and European world the majority of slaves were upper to middle class servants. They didn't see them as fit to be laborers for the most part, exceptions exist. In the new world they were treated worse than animals and there's record of them even being whipped if they wouldn't have intercourse on command, even if that intercourse was with their own immediate family member.

@@Americanbadashh sources?

@@Hans-rd9lf Economics played a huge role on the abolition of slavery Britain didn't abolish slavery simply because of ethics. Basically, slaves don't have salaries, so they can't buy any goods, specifically british goods, by enforcing slavery to be illegal in their own country they could force other countries to also abolish slavery without facing too much repercussions of it being hypocritical. The slaves in other countries, after freed, can work for a salary and buy british goods, since they were the production powerhouse after the industrial revolution and had the best consumer goods, simple as that

every society conducted slavery hell there are footage of open slave markets in saudi arabia that eerily resemble of what popular media think of slavery ie bunch of black dudes standing naked in the center of market while its owner bargains the price

Slavery was disapproved by the new independent countries in Latin America. By instance Mexico abolished slavery in 1810. Many years before Britain, France and US did.

Spain in 1500's : Declared that all the people in its colonies and conquered territory as citizens. While not abolishing slavery, its still an act of preventing slavery within its territory. Not until the 1800's due to more in fighting that kept Spain from managing their laws. Portugal: was forced to abolish Japanese slavery because they wanted to conquer Japan in the same period Spain declared their own way of denouncing slavery. But never stopped slavery as an institution. But yeah Its either Britain or Spain that abolished Slavery early on.

@@ousamadearu5960 HAHAHA at the same time Spain authorized that all Indians that resisted the invasion would be enslaved. Very convenient

@@ousamadearu5960 the concept of citizen didn’t exist in Spain until the end of the 19th century. Spain segregated the people based on their race (the cast system) even based on their place of birth. Indians were not allowed to live in the same cities with the whites (for example the city of Merida, Yucatan). Peninsulars had more privileges than Spanish born in the Americas.

Also on side note, how Indians got the bad end of the deal never gets talked about.

@@singularityraptor4022 Compared to what? Being ruled by cruel Princes and warlords instead? I mean it's not like they would have been a Democracy instead.

Then why did Britain continued slavery in India

The british didn't do it purely because of being unethical, they abolished it mostly because of economics

@@computerbr9344 Citation needed. Because if the economics don't work then you don't really need to use force to prevent it.

I wonder this is possible. The currency must have gone through a lot of Ups and downs and in general inflation.

​@@felxtathe initial loan cost 75% of the empires GDP.

Was it during the “summer of love”

Assuming you're referring to summer 2020, in which case yes.

@@nikoclesceri2267 sounds about right.

It has slavery in it, so….

Well Jersey was, not Guernsey

🙌

Yes, I noted that. There was a number of court cases from the 16th century on that all concluded slavery was not a legal state. Somerset v Stewart was just the last and decisive.

It was the main reason so many escaped slaves joined the navy.

🙏

@@ThatArchiveGuy just wondering, how did you manage to get this video?

@@Newdivide I pretty much download every video I watch and enjoy. The thumbnail tho, I was able to reverse image search a super low quality version of it that someone posted on twitter

@@ThatArchiveGuy so that's how you obtain it. Thanks for the info. There's another video I was wondering if you can find it

@@Newdivide Yeah no problem, I can check for you. It'd be best if you had the videos title but I could still look for it even if you didn't know the title, just let me know

I knew it was a few years after Haiti but didn't know they were having slave strikes themselves, TIL.

+Angela Bronckhurst Yeah, maybe you should do it some time. The uprising I referred to is known as “The Baptist War,” and it took place in Jamaica 1 year before slavery was abolished in the British Empire. It was kind of the nail in the coffin of slavery. The last of many incidents which contributed to the decision.

@Angela Bronckhurst What are you even alleging? That because Dahomey threatened war if the British abolished slavery so the British... decided to abolish slavery? Clearly the British didn't consider Dahomey very threatening considering they went through with the abolition of slavery and even began to blockade Dahomey in the 1840's to force them to stop trading slaves.

@Angela Bronckhurst The Caribbean was the only place in the British Empire that still had a significant amount of chattel slavery, so yeah, slave uprisings in that region would be very relevant to the Britain's policy on slavery. And the Baptist uprising wasn't the only slave uprising the British colonies had experienced. Over the years, there had been several other ones in Jamaica, including one that lasted for 10 years! Slavery had been on it's way out in the Empire, and the latest uprising was only a reminder of the problems inherent to chattel slavery, further galvanizing support for abolition.

@@samiamrg7 either you're being deliberately ignorant or just ignorant. What's being pointed out is, if an organised, well funded African Kingdom didn't force Britain to continue slaving, why would a localised uprising force them to stop? The answer, which you're dishonestly over looking, is the abolition of the slave trade was just part of the inevitably trajectory to total abolition. It was always the objective of the abolitionists. Whilst the rebellions would have given the abolitionists even more reason, and maybe hastened things a little, the die had always been cast.

LUL

Worth remembering that for most of history slavery was seen as a normal part of society worldwide. In the 11th century about a fifth of England's population were slaves before William the conqueror made slavery a criminal offense, and that was at least partially for financial self interest since the punishment was a fine paid to him directly.

@@KFP_Prophet Same with systems of oppression today. People normalize routine violence. There's probably a few horrible things you support without having given them a proper moral analysis, because why would you? It's normal. Or maybe you believe one of the many excuses given by those in power. It can easily go either way, because it always has. Hell, we're both communicating through devices that almost certainly involved slavery in its production. Especially if you're using technology owned by Apple, Microsoft, or Samsung.

Why was it deleted?

Yes why?

Why?

I believe KZfaq deleted it due to its muddied waters with stupidly not releasing that it is clearly educational

@@atomicexistentialism8428 yeah but why?

@grand nagus ah yes brutally raping, torturing, killing ,beating and subjugating them is not so bad and it's "just work".. There is a deep corner in hell made just for you, you racist prick

2015...not 2010.

This was the 1800s, of course the reparations didn’t go to the bloody slaves. That’s way too moral for the era of imperialism.

@@tayetrotman Morals ?? You bring morals into this when there are more slaves today than ever before? That the (VAST !)majority of those slaves are in non white countries? Wheres your outrage and snide backhanded sarcasm there? Indonesia, China, Nigeria, Congo, North Korea.....Why is there no protests outside these countries embassies? Why do ppl look back 200 yrs and say "British empire bad, must have outrage!" when at least we did something about it.....what are ppl doing today?

You say that like it’s the wrong decision The USA tried to do it the cheap way with no payments… in comes the deadliest war in US history and potentially splitting the states. Britain was smart to compensate slave traders, I mean honestly what people don’t realize is, it was the African leaders who were against banning slavery as it was a huge portion of their economy.

@@musti12312 6 million? That’s just the pinnacle of the tip of the iceberg. In WWII German concentration/death camps accounted for 11 million deaths. The eastern front saw tens of millions of people killed as Nazi Germany was conducting a war of genocide similar to that of the US wars against their indigenous people (but with radically different outcomes). The total number of deaths just from the Second World War was close to 100 million and certainly goes over that when combining both world wars.

A negative financial impact on African kingdoms and empires- not so much on the common people. But yeah interesting point. Although, by the time Leopold was colonizing the Congo in the 1880s the dominant powers in eastern Congo were still Arab-Swahili slave traders selling people east to the indian ocean.

Once upon I time, I saw a fac simile of a historical letter from an African lord to a Portuguese emissary, more or less like this: we have noticed that for some time you haven't ordered any slaves. If it's because someone has disrespected you or you king, be assured that we place our friendship on the highest grounds, so name him and we'll have him executed. Too bad I didn't have the opportunity to get a photocopy of that.

@@Neomalthusiano I've seen people ignorantly try to claim an early battle with the king of the Kongo with the Portuguese over slavery in the kingdom of the Kongo as 'the first Africans fighting back against European slavery'. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. It was the king upset he thought the Portuguese were muscling in on his slave trading monopoly, and so attacked them because they were! The Anglophone world is totally ignorant of the fact it was actually the king of the Kongo who sold slaves to a Portuguese trade mission, that only went to Africa for ivory and gold etc., That started the transatlantic slave trade. Not only that, they struck up a relationship and the kings of the look Kongo became Christians and even took Portuguese names. It's why all the early slaves to the Americas came from Angola, where the kingdom of the Kongo was.

It goes back deeper than that. Once Britain had abolished it's slave trade they tried to convince, persuade, pressure, bribe, bombard and even invade African kingdoms to stop slaving. One way to convince them to stop was to offer new trade, Palm oil being the particular one offered. But they realised the slave trade itself had decimated populations etc. Even at the coast.

Title

@@alta-road8803 I mean he could've changed it right?

I think it was taken down or something.

Indentured servitude is and was light years better than slavery

@@Rowlph8888 indentured servitude as it pertained to european populations was terrible but lightyears better than slavery. Indenturing as the british practiced it in India was essentially slavery in everything but name, their treatment was identical to when they were labeled as slaves. Serfdom also has significant overlap with slavery and in many ways was a surprisingly straightforward continuation of Roman slavery, at certain times in history serfs lost so many rights that they couldn't do things like leave their lord's land or were required to work for free. Janissary means "new soldier" in turkish, but is a group of slave soldiers that were kidnapped from southeastern europe as children and brainwashed. So "change what we call it but treat them the same way" was and is a way slavery has been handled.

Wdym?

@@papapoleon1136 the channel that makes these videos is called History Matters

But why is this video here then ?

@@tempuscodex2316 deleted by youtube

WRONG The I French Républic abolish 1st in 1794 by Maximilien Robespierre.

@@guillaumehervouet9293 And my state of Massachusetts beat you both. We abolished it in 1767.

@@guillaumehervouet9293 that is true but I fortunately it was later re-established in the French colonies after Thermidor; Napoleon sent forces to the Caribbean to force the question.

england banned slavery in 1100ad. its been unpopular with the vast magority of the population even before then. if britain had wanted to it could have contained any rebellion and scorch-earthed america and the carribean islands but chose not to. Instead it sent its boys out across the world to fight for justice.Your trying to rewrite history says more about your own unhappiness than history

It's because the US Constitution was designed entirely to protect states' own interests while giving some power to the federal government, especially with the Tenth Amendment, which basically put the regulation of slavery up to the states, which is why there were some slavery permitting and some slavery abolishing states. The European powers of the time didn't have nearly as ridiculous levels of power delegated to their constituent divisions, so it was far easier to outlaw slavery. It took a whole civil war to abolish slavery because the South would not be willing to ratify an amendment or pass a law to outlaw the very institution they were economically dependent on.

@@commscan314 What's your point?

TBF many/most of the Northern states did abolish slavery almost immediately on independence and even tried to get it put into declaration of independence, but the South complained. The North also sent ships to help the Royal Navy.

@@mikhailiagacesa3406 Due to the "Protect the States" mentality of the time along with how amendments require more states to ratify than there were Abolitionist Statess, it was impossible to end slavery without a civil war, and the kick the can down the road mentality of the Missouri and 1850 Compromises stalled for the Civil War to even start..

@@commscan314 Ummm...I don't care and it has nothing to do with my comment. My comments were confined to europe in general and Great Britain, specifically.

yeah, that practice had to end.

They literally still oppressed DOS and still do in many ways systematically? Lmao saying slavery is bad is the bare minimum, also not like they divided up Africa less then 50 years after

@@vetabeta9890 not like France still has an empire and oppresses millions of Africans to this day

@@vetabeta9890 you’re uninformed

@@vetabeta9890 Pal, unless you never learned any history, much of Africa (especially sub-Saharan Africa) was already divided and clashing long before the Europeans came to the continent. Sure, there were a few kingdoms and empires but most of them were largely undeveloped iron-age places, except Ethiopia. Plus, there were frequent tribal conflicts (for example, the Sokoto Caliphate in what is now Nigeria was infamous for enslaving the Yoruba, some Igbo and Benin people until the British came and ended their caliphate). If you honestly expect me, or many Africans today, to seriously waste time talking about long-past oppression, then you clearly don't talk to many Africans at all. The fact that many of our nations (imperfectly drawn as their are) came into existence because of the colonialists, the fact that we enjoy things like modern technology, infrastructure, modern medicine, national identity, foreign trade and a better standard of living than our ancestors did, are you seriously a fool to think we would complain about this?

and how about a resounding condemnation for having help start the Atlantic Slave Trade some 200 years earlier?

@MI6 That was England, France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal

I believe so

There was also at least one reupload so I guess the earlier version of that video was technically deleted (or privated).

Yup and you wonder who were those in the 21st century UK still profiting from slavery 🤔 UK media kept it very hushed

100 years? Fairly sure we’ve been duking it out with the French for longer than that

@@zachpaterson2585, the struggle I referred to concerned attitudes and forms of government. The French monarchy could not accept that a Parliament could remove a divine-rights king as happened in 1688. The British could not accept that kings were above the law and unrestricted in their actions. Before this period, the English and French found many reasons to have wars. (Scotland had a longstanding alliance with France before the personal union of the Stewarts and later Act of Union.) The 100 Years War was over whose dynasty had the better right to the throne of France. After this period, the British and French increasingly found common ground. They fought together in the Crimean War and after France became much more committed to democracy, they fought together in both World Wars and continue to be allies in NATO. So, you're right in that they did have a long history of antagonisms but I was pointing out reasons for that antagonism over the period in question.

@@craigward4868 They British aristocracy sure cried and opined over the overthrow of their French cousins though, they fought hard to re-install absolute monarchy in France and played the key role in making it eventually happen.

@@roryross3878, actually, they fought "absolute monarchy" under Napoleon. The restored Bourbon monarchy was not as powerful as it had been; it was modeled to be more like the constitutional monarchical system of the UK. The British aristocracy was more worried about the spread of the French Revolution that their French "cousins" lost out.

thousands

this isnt the original channel stop sending him suggestions this is a repost

@@AyaanGaming2211 oh I wasn’t aware. Thanks for the heads up!

When it followed Portugal to Africa it found that the African warlords and aristocrats already had a thriving slave trade. These African aristocrats dissuaded Britain from venturing deep into Africa to protect their own profits as they sold their own people to European powers.

@@Whoami691 interesting. Definitely would be cool to learn more about!

I agree with you regardless of anything else they did ending slavery is the best thing humans have ever done.

It still is going on today ! Still in Africa and the Middle East

Britain had participated in the slavetrade for more than 250 years in the first place Britain has a truly apalng histry

@@larrybuchannan186 that describes pretty much all civilisations for all history really, so it is a nothing statement except people are aweful. Brits get credit for ending and enforcing the end of slavery.

​@@Peter-xz5dl they ended slave trade not slavery, for atleast decades after 1833 act Britain still profited from slavery.

Yes

That's the Somersett vs Stewart (1772) case, which held that slavery was not legally a thing under English Common Law. There's a theory that Lord Mansfield, who made the decision in the case, may have been influenced in his decision by the fact his great-niece, who he had brought up in his own household with another great-niece (who was white), was mixed-race (the daughter of his nephew and a black slave). Certainly, the two girls were not treated any differently. This was a major boon for the abolitionist movement because it established the precedent that a slave, once they touched English soil, was automatically free.

Why you dissing William the Conqueror?

Chinese opium addicts: MORE!!!

xD

The BG is a private entity.

@@ImportedFromSerbia BG?

The Treaty of Utrecht included a clause whereby the King of England obtained a "Asiento de esclavos": permission to export slaves.