Comments by "Curious Crow" (@CuriousCrow-mp4cx) on "Labour MP's powerful speech on legacy of slavery during debate on Black History Month" video.
-
You have it. It's known as the Welfare State. There's no ongoing legacy from that which compares to the 12 million slaves transported in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 15% which were murdered on route for insurance, or quelling onboard uprisings. Then the cruelty - psychological, material, physical, familial and sexual abuse inherent in the trade and ownership of slaves has resulted in an intergenerational and economic legacy that still exists in the fact that the descendants largely cannot pull up their bootstraps today, because many of the states and the families are enjoying that wealth created by the suffering caused by slavery. And through their economic power that has lasted to this day, are still standing on the bootstraps of the descendants of the slaves they once owned. Poorhouses in contrast only used to control destitution, and if those people escaped destitution and debt, they could freely leave those places. Not so slaves. Even though a lucky few managed to were allowed to raise money to buy their freedom, that was only possible if their owner agreed to it. If they didnt, they and their children remained chattels of their owners. Poorhouse inhabitants weren't slaves. They were a social problem that the British state, with the agreement of its citizens, chose to solve by confinement in the poorhouses in each parish. There was no democratic mandate from slaves.
13
-
7
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
It's always been that way, and in the most ironic way possible. Did you know a big idea in the postwar period was for the Commonwealth to become a trade bloc? If it had happened, then the Commonwealth would have been the biggest trade bloc on the planet, and Britain would have been even richer. Why? The African states were sitting on reserves of rare earths needed for the Electronic Revolution. Do you know what killed that idea?
Britain made a promise to the former African Colonies that once they got independence Black majority rule would be introduced. But Rhodesia majority White government supported by South Africa, didn't want that. NIMBY or what? And Harold Wilson was in a quandary, as the British Economy wasn't revving in all cylinders, as its rivals had caught up with it, and the Americans insisted on Britain relinquishing it's protectionist Imperial Markets system aka The Sterling Area. Sadly Churchill had to agree because it was necessary to get the Americans into WWII. Britain therefore had to relinquish much of its empire, which with the war debt owed to the Americans, put pressure on the economy. Global inflation was rising, and Sterling having lost global reserve currency status turned the screw even tighter.
Wilson wanted not only to keep the Africans onside, but also wanted to develop and strengthen trade links with them. But Wilson also did not not want to send British troops to quell the rebellion, because he feared they would not want to fight white Rhodesias. The Commonwealth was divided on the matter, arguably on racial lines, because the White-ruled dominions didn't want to force Rhodesia to comply. But the African States were insistent and everyone else was sympathetic to their perspective. The dominions managed to convince Wilson to break the promise. He was only prepared to apply political pressure. The Lagos conference broke up in conflict. The African States were upset with Wilson's decision, and left in a huff. Relationships between Britain and the black African ruled states went downhill fast, and the dream of a Commonwealth trade bloc died at that time.
Wilson had no choice but to pursue the alternative: joining the European Coal and Steel Community, which would become the European Economic Community (EEC). Like Macmillan before him, Wilson knew it would not be easy. DeGualle had rebuffed the entreaties of Supermac, and Wilson felt the pressure, because Britain would be in a worse state if it didn't join.
Why? At that time the Americans were anxious to secure a secure peace in Europe, to the extent of the CIA secretly funding Jean Monnet's campaign to create a political and economic union in Europe. And, TBH the Americans applied subtle pressure on Britain to join. Once, the Commonwealth idea had been stillborn, Wilson has no choice but to keep trying, even though I think he knew that doing so would weaken Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth further. After all, the GATT rules were evolving to promoting free trade, and the EEC's rules would be based on GATT, so Britain would be forced to turn aside, at a time where it's economy needed global rather than just continental trade links.
An even greater irony was that British special forces went secretly went to Rhodesia to fight the Africa nationalist forces, and Britain would not be able to join the EEC until DeGaulle left power in France. His successor, President Mitterand would agree to Britain's application. And after a decade long bloody civil war, Rhodesia'S white majority government would agree to Black majority rule.
So, even the Commonwealth cannot trump national interest and the beliefs of the leaders involved. Arguably, it is a co-dependent relationship that is maintained to serve geopolitical and economic needs, rather than some lovey-dovey relationship. Britain historically through its offshore tax haven trade, which is the largest stake in that industry, has used its influence with the Commonwealth to promote its own political and economic agendas. And it's the economic which is the most problematic. GATT (now the WTO) endured that the developed nations of the north maintained control of the global economy, and international trade, along with globalisation and financialisation driven by the Anglosphere school of thought subsequently maintained that economic control by creating rules that favoured countries that made trade agreements with the, but punished those who did not. And the global South had good reason to attempt to loosen the chokehold held by the IMF, the World Bank, and the Eurocurrency International Offshore Financial Markets around their necks. Moreover, with Climate Chabge, the affected nations must strive to find exoertise, money, and resources not to face a dire future. I think it's this latter issue that has bought Reparations back on the table. They need funding to survive what's coming down the line, and not much help is forthcoming, even though it's needed. So, at the very least they may be looking for debt relief, if not handouts. I wish them well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1