Do You Really Think The British Were Evil?

[@JaketheJust]

I’m American, but my grandmother was born in Kent, England. She was a little girl who lived through the Blitz, saw the Dunkirk boats evacuating the British Expeditionary Force. Four years later, she saw a fleet heading to Normandy and Southern France. Her uncles, all who fought bravely for their country, taught her to be keep calm and carry on. I’m proud of my English heritage. God save the King

[@KramerPacer83]

Whereabouts in Kent? My dad’s from Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey.

[@arunnaik3375]

Read 'Rape of a continent' and 'The case for India' by by Will Durant, or 'Inglorious Empire' by Shashi Tharoor. After that if you still feel proud, then you must be a reprobate.

[@rudysmith1552]

@@arunnaik3375 As you speak English

[@arunnaik3375]

@@rudysmith1552 To take advantage of reprobates.

[@jester6-1-6]

​@arunnaik3375 Take a day off from the anger. It'll do you good 👍🏻

[@jonjohnson2844]

As a British person I demand reparations from the Saxons who colonised the area I was born over a thousand years ago...even though I might be one of them.

[@danallen3947]

me too

[@af5433]

@@danallen3947 As italian I'll pay reparations to Britain 🤣

[@glenthompson8353]

No evidence of Saxon invasion

[@dandojambo1176]

😂😂👏👏

[@dandojambo1176]

​@glenthompson8353 sausage it's a joke 😃

[@paulhanson5164]

As an Englishman its impossible to take accusations of slavery and colonisation seriously when the groups doing the accusing often come to my country from monocultures, have brought modern day slavery with them and come in such numbers that my culture is being lost as we become the minority in vast swathes of our homeland.

[@imankhandaker6103]

Not when. Because.

[@arunnaik3375]

Your attempt to obfuscate the discussion with a diversion into immigration issues does not absolve historical accountability. Accusations of slavery and colonization are not negated by contemporary demographic shifts or cultural anxieties. Such assertions are not only specious but also fail to address the structural injustices and lasting impacts of colonialism. It is clear that conflating historical grievances with contemporary immigration dynamics is fallacious and myopic. The complexities of globalization and demographic change do not diminish the need for historical reckoning and ethical reflection. Engaging in such rhetorical strategies only serves to obfuscate genuine dialogue about past injustices and their ongoing repercussions.

[@imankhandaker6103]

@@arunnaik3375 Obfuscation through verbiage. The present is the result of the past. A fact inescapable - no matter how many words you use to cloud the issue.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@imankhandaker6103 I was not responding to you.

[@imankhandaker6103]

@@arunnaik3375 A concrete example. Over 200 years of Company & Raj the British stole more than their ENTIRE ANNUAL GDP - for EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 200 years. A scale of theft unmatched in human history - turning the second richest nation on earth (Mughal India compared to Q'in China) ... to the poorest. That was the background that forced my parents to migrate. The Churchill induced 1943 Bengal famine costing 3 million lives; deliberate mismanagement of the 1947 partition resulting in 5 million of deaths & three major war Indo-Pak wars costing uncounted millions of more lives. To add to this - Kissinger doing all he could to suppress Bengali Independence by sending the USS Enterprise (aircraft carrier - not starship) to threaten a nuclear strike. In all we were lucky to escape with my brother as the only death. Tell me what I am conflating again? If ANY of these crimes had not been committed - we would not be here. Your ancestors watched silent as these crimes were committed & or slept through them. This is the result.

[@ilikelampshades6]

Britains contribution to the world is outrageous. A Japanese study even said over 50% of the worlds inventions come from the UK. They were a force of good for humanity

[@michaelmorgan9289]

We also invented the Crapper which is now a world wide convinience for millions of people.

[@arunnaik3375]

Your statement is an astonishing exercise in selective memory and imperialist nostalgia. Claiming that over 50% of the world's inventions come from the UK, based on an unspecified Japanese study, is both dubious and irrelevant when weighed against the brutal legacy of British colonialism. First, let's be clear: any contributions the UK made to global knowledge and innovation do not absolve it from the horrors inflicted during its colonial rule. The British Empire built its wealth on the backs of enslaved peoples, plundered resources, and the violent subjugation of countless nations. The atrocities committed-such as the Bengal Famine, the massacre at Amritsar, and the genocides in Tasmania-cast a long, dark shadow over any supposed "force of good." Moreover, many of the so-called British inventions and advancements were made possible by exploiting colonized lands and peoples. The riches extracted from the colonies fueled the industrial revolution and scientific advancements in Britain, often at the cost of devastating local economies and cultures. Your glorification of Britain's contributions conveniently ignores the widespread suffering and systemic oppression that accompanied its rise to power. A true measure of a nation's legacy should include both its achievements and the human costs of those achievements. By glossing over the atrocities and focusing solely on the positive, you perpetuate a dangerous and misleading narrative. In short, your argument is not only historically naive but also morally bankrupt. Recognizing Britain's contributions does not mean whitewashing its imperial crimes. It's time to confront the full, unvarnished truth about the British Empire's impact on the world. European civilizations did copy and build upon mathematics and other knowledge from ancient Egyptian and Indian civilizations, among others. The transmission of knowledge from these earlier civilizations to Europe happened through a variety of channels over many centuries. Ancient Egyptians developed early forms of geometry and arithmetic. They used a decimal system and had a grasp of basic mathematical operations, which they applied in building their monumental architecture like the pyramids. Their practical knowledge in geometry was foundational for later developments. Egyptians also contributed to early astronomy and medical practices. Their observations of the stars and the development of a calendar influenced later astronomical studies. Ancient Indian mathematicians made significant contributions to the field, particularly in the development of the decimal system and the concept of zero. Mathematicians like Aryabhata and Brahmagupta made advances in algebra, trigonometry, and calculus that would later influence European mathematics. During the Islamic Golden Age, scholars in the Muslim world translated and expanded upon Greek, Egyptian, Indian, and Persian texts. Centers of learning in places like Baghdad and Cordoba became hubs for the preservation and advancement of knowledge. Scholars like Al-Khwarizmi (whose name gave us the term "algorithm") played crucial roles in developing algebra based on earlier works from India and other regions. This knowledge was later transmitted to Europe through translations of Arabic texts into Latin during the medieval period. During the Renaissance, European scholars rediscovered ancient texts preserved by the Islamic world and began to translate and study them extensively. This period saw a renewed interest in classical knowledge and the birth of modern science and mathematics in Europe, building on the foundations laid by earlier civilizations. European advancements in mathematics and other fields owe a significant debt to the knowledge and discoveries of ancient Egyptian and Indian civilizations, among others. This cross-cultural exchange of knowledge highlights the interconnectedness of human intellectual history.

[@michaelmorgan9289]

@@arunnaik3375 It's slightly amusing to read your accusation of selective memory when you are using a selection of snippets to qualify your argument. Perhaps if you read the original article & then laid out your argument without the emotion 7 over reaction it would be more readily accepted. However you fail to explain why all this non European knowledge dried up & that the Indian, Chinese, Arab/Muslim achievements in mathematics & science virtually vanished overnight. You also took the opportunity to castigate the British Empire demonstrating a complete ignorance to the circumstances leading to the development of that Empire. All in all your comment evolved into a discombobulated anti British rant when you had the opportunity to create structure your argument better.

[@ilikelampshades6]

@arunnaik3375 Britiain ended the world slave trade with support from France and Denmark. They bought all of the slaves in the empire at such huge cost, that millenials were still paying the debt off. Meaning that minorities should literally be grateful for modern day britons for buying their ancestors freedoms. The British were a force of good for the world, sure they had their moments but all of the ex-British colonies are doing far better now than their neighbours who were not part of the empire. People need to be more grateful for what the British did for them.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@ilikelampshades6 Your argument is riddled with historical inaccuracies and a staggering lack of understanding of the true impact of British colonialism. Let's break it down. Firstly, while Britain did play a significant role in ending the transatlantic slave trade, it conveniently overlooks the fact that the British Empire was also one of the largest perpetrators of slavery for over 200 years. The abolition of slavery was not driven purely by altruism but by economic, political, and social pressures. Secondly, the claim that Britain "bought all of the slaves in the empire" and that this debt was so enormous that millennials were still paying it off is misleading. Yes, the British government compensated slave owners for their "loss of property" to the tune of £20 million in 1833-a staggering sum that did indeed take over a century to repay. However, the enslaved individuals themselves received nothing. They continued to suffer under brutal conditions until their emancipation, and their descendants have had to endure the enduring legacy of racism and inequality. Moreover, suggesting that minorities today should be "grateful" for their ancestors' "freedom" being bought is not only patronizing but also grossly insensitive. This perspective completely ignores the systemic racism, exploitation, and violence that continued long after the formal abolition of slavery and continues to affect these communities today. As for the claim that "all ex-British colonies are doing far better now than their neighbors who were not part of the empire," this is a sweeping generalization that does not hold up under scrutiny. The legacies of British colonialism, including economic exploitation, cultural erasure, and arbitrary borders, have had devastating and long-lasting impacts on many former colonies. Some nations may have fared better than others post-independence, but to credit this to British colonial rule is an oversimplification that ignores the agency and resilience of these nations' peoples in overcoming the adverse effects of colonization. In summary, the narrative that the British Empire was a "force of good" that should be thanked by modern minorities is not only historically inaccurate but also dismissive of the suffering and struggles endured by those oppressed under colonial rule. A more nuanced and honest reflection on this history is necessary, one that acknowledges both the positive and the deeply harmful impacts of British actions worldwide.

[@R1chardH]

It's ironic that the British empire was the Woke empire, yet the most hated bybthe woke.

[@nonegone7170]

Woke empire my arse, the brits have been nothing but thieving barbarians to every nation they've ever encountered. All in name of their inbred kings.

[@Gypsygeekfreak17]

@@nonegone7170 okay you left wing loser

[@gooner_duke2756]

Its totally ironic and its the society, laws, etc in the UK today that allows people to be woke. Tell them to go to China, etc., etc., etc and try and be woke there... we are spoilt in the west, we really are and most don't even know it...

[@seanmoran2743]

American Imperialism is doing a good job of filling that vacuum

[@Blackisciple]

Most woke Empire what a load of garbage you are speaking the British were no different than the Spanish French Dutch Americans Brazilians Swedish any European they were just as bad and evil as the rest most woke Empire what's a lot of garbage lol

[@articulateit-andgetwhatyouwant]

Thomas Sowell speaks about this too - *Africans * (from the fruitful, educated coasts) kept and sold Africans (especially from the undernourished, uneducated inland) as slaves. The British systematically worked to abolish slavery. Undernourished populations with a generally less successful background are more likely to view the world negatively and feel hopeless... which carries on through generations.

[@thebenevolentsun6575]

Obviously they bought them from somewhere. That's not the issue. The issue is that Europeans gave those coastal Africans guns to get more slaves and caused deaths indirectly that way. They demanded evil and so Africa supplied it. I don't think we should feel guilty about it but we shouldn't act like the British were benevolent anti-slavers. They were slavers when it was convenient and anti-slavers when it was convenient. The abolishment of slavery was a strategic move. It wasn't about the slaves themselves (they would literally sink slave ships with the slaves on them) it was about industrial dominance.

[@hamdoolam]

Thank you The British!🇬🇧🥳 And thank God for being good.

[@Ronin969]

like when they snuggled up with Stalin despite knowing all about the holodomor, the red terror and the purges? i hate to burst your bubble but it's gotta be done

[@HonestBottom]

​@@Ronin969 Allies of convenience / necessity. Churchill wanted to fight Russia next.

[@jamesbyrnes716]

​@@HonestBottom Churchill sent the auxiliaries to Ireland to hunt us like animals. May he rot in hell

[@arunnaik3375]

@@HonestBottom Churchill's policies resulted in an estimated over 4 million people deaths from starvation and malnutrition during a famine in Bengal in 1943, while Britain exported huge amounts of food from India, including 70,000 tonnes of rice in the same year.

[@WithmeVerissimusWhostoned]

Thank the Brits for freedom? Wow! That's a next level of twisting logic, those oppressive colonizers are the reason slavery was so widespread in the first place, they enslaved, bullied and terrorized most countries in the world thru'out the history, they betrayed countries in WW1 and WW2 to pursue their own interests,... I would have quite different words for those bastards. If you want to thank them, you have lost the plot. \o/

[@AinsleyGovan]

The issue of the slave trade and abolition was one of the main points of contention in the Napoleonic Wars. Britain sought to disrupt French and other European powers' involvement in the slave trade and suppress their slave-based colonies. The issue of slavery contributed to tensions between Britain and the United States during the 19th century. Britain's efforts to enforce its anti-slavery laws, such as the capture of slave ships, sometimes led to clashes with American vessels. British naval forces even engaged in conflicts with African powers involved in the slave trade.

[@Tj-ot4jp]

As an Englishman I feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever about something that happened 300 years ago, why should I? And by the way could I please have reparations from the Danish and Italian governments for the slavery of my people, I feel I have been held back in life.

[@left4deadR]

No wonder your the most hated breed now 😂

[@evansheehan8717]

Would you support the re-unification of ireland ? A stark modern day reminder of your ancestors past crimes, you shouldn’t feel guilty for these actions but so many brits forget how recent their crimes were

[@seanfindlay1521]

12th century is pretty recent fufufufududud

[@Roz-y2d]

@@evansheehan8717No, not unless ALL the people of N Ireland agree. And even then, how would the Protestants be treated afterwards? I wish it could work but I don’t think it would. And then there’s the EU, would they agree and behave decently? They haven’t so far, in fact they’re downright vindictive because of Brexit. If you have an idea of how to make it work, please tell.

[@evansheehan8717]

@@Roz-y2d times have moved on the Protestants would be fine just as unionists are fine in the north now. My point isn’t that a United ireland is necessarily the better option. But it is still a very recent reminder of colonial power at its worst. The British government not people are one of the greatest villains in earths history, I think to quickly forget that and to not be ashamed of the horrors they committed all over the world is taking one step closer to allowing things like this to happen again.

[@MrJabbothehut]

After reading Thomas Sowell and a lot about medieval history (and history in general) what it has taught me is that there are no shortage of people in the world willing to bend people to their will in order to carry out their selfish wants. Human nature is fixed and by default the human is a tyrant when he doesn not understand how the world around him works as subconsciously we are programmed to survive first and for that we need security and resources. What I also learnt is that freedom is the exception and not the norm throughout human history and all advances towards greater freedom for the individual came as a result of having to fight for it in some way or another. The Magna Carta was done for the Barons who didnt like being taxed so much by King John but in return had no problem taxing the shit out of their serfs. The abolition of slavery started as a moral movement and required the British governemt to pay an absolute fortune to compensate slaveowners for peaceful takeover of goods and to have British ships police the oceans of the world. the 13 colonies had to fight tooth and nail to gain their freedom from the Brits and then of course there is WW2 with the fight against Hitler. Heck the reason the British started spreading the idea of freedom amongst themselves was because they spent so much of their military budget on their navy and keeping their colonies safe that they didn't have a large enough land army to control people within the country like the french did at the time (who are still very culturally inclined to centralised decision making and planning btw monarchist style). Freedom is super precious but the problem is that people don't understand the dynamics of a lot of how the world works and so they feel lost and prefer to overly limit others rather than to try and build themselves up. Most people also have only known freedom in the West and do not know life without it and therefore don't know the value that it brings. They really don't realise that things such as slavery, pillaging, war, rape, plunder, serfdom were considered perfectly normal back then as life is brutal by default and the only thing that has really helped humans get along well is being able to trade and produce for each other and improve each others' lives mutually in a stable and peaceful manner rather than by conquering and taking resources by force ina similar fashion to chimpanzees.

[@KopperNeoman]

"The 13 colonies had to..." Not quite. The governments of the colonies declared independence, and British Americans who wanted nothing to do with it spent ten years trying and failing to overthrow the government. C.S. Lewis said that contemporism is a petty tyrant, and your view of the serf's life is very contemporous. A feudal lordship was more akin to a company town, only with more rights (it was, however, harder to leave.). A simplification, but one that more modern audiences can understand.

[@MrJabbothehut]

@@KopperNeoman my point was that independence had to be fought for on the battlefield ultimately. Governments ultimately represent their people even if there is a lot of internal conflict.

[@KopperNeoman]

@@MrJabbothehut Technically, independence was fought AGAINST is my point. The Redcoats were mostly American. The Yankees actually got more outside assistance then the Loyalists did. That's not what's taught in the schools however, so it makes sense that most would believe otherwise. To glean the knowledge that I have of the War for Independence requires knowing not just why the Yankees declared independence, but also why the Loyalists counterrebelled.

[@im_that_guy]

So happy to hear some good messages about Britain. Anglophobia is far too rife in many public institutions right now.

[@jamesbyrnes716]

My comment was deleted for violating hate speech bit ill go again. Us Irish will never forgive you

[@robertjay9415]

anglophobia thats a new one lol

[@im_that_guy]

@@jamesbyrnes716 "forgive you" like I had anything to do with it. You're deluded. Half my family are Irish too. But because I'm British I bet you think I carry some sort of sin of the father. Just like the pathetic BLM crowd.

[@martinburrows6844]

​@@robertjay9415 it's a good one,

[@VEE727]

We Indians will not either

[@chucksolutions4579]

I’m going to quite CS Lewis, as best I can, “It was Aristotle who once said, ‘some men are not fit for more than slaves,’ and while I don’t know if I agree with this I do not believe that any man is fit to be a master.” My life has revealed both these statements true, most directly within my own life. I’ve often wondered if I am fit to be anything more.

[@sandihill669]

The Greeks believed you were a slave because you had a slave mentality. So in the case of territorial war, those people who became ‘prisoners of war’/slaves had a choice NOT to be slaves. If they allowed themselves to be taken into slavery rather than die - then that was their choice.

[@chucksolutions4579]

@@sandihill669 I think there is more to it than that BUT that is where it starts. Are you willing to fight to the death to be free? If not, you can be enslaved. If you ever met me you would think me to be the hardest working person ever. BUT when I work for myself I am incredibly lazy, even making sure I get paid what I’m owed takes a huge emotional toll on me. I’ve worked every hard labor job you care to imagine farm, ranch, construction etc. I have done no less than six combat deployments with a very well known group of killers (BUDS 260, HOOYAH!!) I do not value myself subconsciously enough to work for myself/my own benefit, or even my wife’s bc she has the audacity to value me. Have me dig a ditch or work a job with 20-200 other people I will literally work circles around everyone. I will constantly and consistently look for more work to do, never satisfied with doing just what is asked. Try to do that to be free, to never have to work for someone else? I never even start no matter how much I torture myself ‘wanting’ to and chafe under someone else’s rules. I’ve recently “mustanged” going from enlisted to officer in the military (reserve status, I was put for nearly ten years, actually went through boot camp at 40, funny story). It’s interesting the difference I have observed between myself and other officers that never served as enlisted members. I think they are superior bc they are not institutionalized. In truth I get a lot of compliments for having unique perspectives, working very hard on assigned tasks and am very naturally physically fit (I rarely work out anymore on my own and rarely did outside of training but even at 44 I just came in second of my 240 member command on a 14 mile run, things like that make people think you’re better at your job than you actually are). Anyways, big bio, sorry to sound self absorbed I was more just trying to make a point without seeming to attack another person.

[@Gastornis11]

I'm proud of our colonial past, the British Empire is the most glorious country to ever grace our earth, we not only freed over 800,000 slaves but industrialized and civilized their home nations and bravely sacrificed our wealth and power to keep the West free from the horrors of totalitarianism of the second world war. As British people and subjects of the crown we should have no guilt for the deeds of our ancestors and should always revere the great scientific, cultural and political achievements they made to allow us to inherit the bountiful world we live in today.

[@TakeTheStairs11]

I'm English and British. It breaks my heart to see the current state and nationwide atmosphere of the UK. The level of self-hatred and shame among younger generations is astonishing. It's seriously unhealthy and destructive. Within my lifetime English people will be a minority in the UK. British culture is deemed racist, worthless and something to be embarrassed about. England and The UK has done so much for the world, yet these achievements are ignored or regarded as colonial assertions of power. My advice to English people is this: Emigrate to elsewhere in the Anglosphere. Gone are the days of glorious England. Heartbreaking.

[@ripvanwinkle6557]

This is a struggle. We must fight. I have no doubt the silent majority are ready for change. In fact, they readily crave it. Where's the bloody spark across the w3st?

[@ColinGaffney-v6x]

But England did a lot of evil things, and they did make a lot of contributions but they are exaggerated. Look what they did to Ireland, destroyed the country. I don't think France would of done the same thing.

[@EmmaLanik13]

You say that you gave so much to the world, but did you think that perhaps your help wasn't asked for in the countries you occupied... true help would have been to eradicate poverty in those countries that you did occupy, primarily in Africa. You gave them a foreign language and culture, how did that really help their situation. England should have put it's money where its mouth is.

[@Comfortzone99]

@@EmmaLanik13 Missionaries to teach, engineers and millions of pounds in aid have been going Africa from the UK for at least 100 years.Zimbabwe (as Rhodesia) was a British invention, there was no one there before.

[@Rid3thetig3r]

​@@EmmaLanik13 "Eradicate poverty"? By building infrastructure, schools, hospitals, a functioning justice system? That kind of thing? Or just hand everyone money and see what happens? Hint: some will do well, others will be found deceased from various causes related to substance abuse, domestic violence etc. just as would happen today.

[@skycloud4802]

Not only had the Brits outlawed slavery, but they also outlawed other barbaric practises. For example, in India the surviving wife would be immolated on the funeral pyre of her dead husband. The Brits were horrified when they found out about this. So in December 1829, Lord William Bentinck, the first governor general of British-ruled India, finally banned sati (the ancient Hindu practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre). Great Britain challenged some traditional cultures in this manner, and reformed them to make a better, more civilised society.

[@arunnaik3375]

The fight against Sati in India was led by several key figures, both Indian reformers and British officials, but the most prominent leader was *Raja Ram Mohan Roy* He was a social reformer, philosopher, and a staunch advocate against the practice of Sati. His efforts were instrumental in creating public awareness about the issue and in pressuring the British authorities to take legal action against it. Sati was not a widespread practice across all of India; its prevalence varied significantly depending on the region, community, and time period. It was most commonly associated with certain upper-caste Hindu communities, particularly among the Rajputs in Rajasthan, parts of Bengal, and a few other areas. However, even within these regions, the practice was not universally observed and was far from being a common occurrence. Estimates of the number of cases vary, but it was certainly a localized and culturally specific practice, rather than a pan-Indian phenomenon. Sati was one way to escape being sold in slave markets. Raja Ram Mohan Roy's efforts, along with those of like-minded reformers and British officials like Lord William Bentinck, led to the eventual ban on Sati in 1829. *Meanwhile child abuse by the clergy under the Church of England continues to this day* In some cases, clergy accused of abuse were quietly relocated to other parishes or dioceses rather than being removed from their positions or reported to authorities. This practice allowed abusers to continue their harmful behavior in new locations, often without any public knowledge of their past.

[@arunnaik3375]

Torture was a deeply disturbing reality of British civilized colonial rule in India. While not every detention facility would be classified as a "torture camp" in the strictest sense, the widespread and systematic use of torture, along with the existence of centers specifically designed for brutal treatment, makes the term applicable in the broader context. Here's a breakdown of how torture manifested in colonial India: Detention Camps: Purpose: Meant to detain political dissidents, revolutionaries, and those considered a threat to British power. Conditions within these camps were designed to be both physically punishing and psychologically demoralizing. Torture techniques: Beatings with sticks, whips, and other implements. Forced stress positions and prolonged standing. Sleep deprivation. Solitary confinement, sometimes in cramped or unsanitary cells. Humiliation and psychological abuse. Colonial Prisons: Overcrowding and Disease: Prisons were severely overcrowded, with poor sanitation leading to widespread illness. This, in itself, became a form of indirect torture and punishment. Forced Labor: Prisoners were often subjected to grueling, sometimes pointless, labor. Physical Abuse: Prison guards employed beatings and other forms of direct physical torture, especially against those accused of political offenses. Types of Physical Abuse: Beatings: Brutality with sticks, whips, rods, and other implements was widespread, often targeting vulnerable body parts. Falaka: This brutal practice involved flogging the soles of the feet, causing excruciating pain and often leading to permanent disability. Suspension: Individuals were suspended by their arms or wrists for extended periods, causing severe physical strain and pain. Mutilation: In extreme cases, torture could involve mutilation or even death. Severity: Physical: Ranged from excruciating pain to permanent disability and even death. Brutality often depended on individual factors like: Perpetrator: Some officials were known for extreme sadism, while others may have been more restrained. Purpose: Torture could be punishment, information extraction, or simply instilling fear. The level of severity could vary based on the desired outcome. Victim's Vulnerability: Age, gender, and perceived level of threat could influence the intensity of torture inflicted. Variations: Physical Abuse: Beatings: Severity ranged from moderate blows to brutal whippings with implements like flogging canes or rods, targeting vulnerable body parts like the soles of the feet (Falaka) or the back. Suspension: Individuals were hung by their wrists, ankles, or even thumbs for extended periods, causing immense pain, muscle strain, and potential nerve damage. Mutilation: In extreme cases, torture could involve burning, crushing, or cutting off body parts. Forced labor: Grueling and often pointless labor tasks were imposed as a form of punishment and physical exhaustion. Psychological Abuse: Sleep deprivation: Victims were deliberately kept awake for extended periods, leading to disorientation, hallucinations, and psychological breakdown. Solitary confinement: Individuals were isolated for days, weeks, or even months, leading to feelings of despair, loneliness, and paranoia. Sensory deprivation: Depriving individuals of light, sound, or other sensory stimuli could cause disorientation and mental distress. Humiliation & Verbal Abuse: Derogatory language, insults, and threats aimed to break down the victim's self-esteem and sense of identity. Mock executions: The threat of imminent death used to create extreme fear and coerce cooperation. Forced labor and penal colonies were integral components of the British colonial administration's strategy to exploit the resources and labor of India while maintaining control over its population. Here's an expanded look at these aspects: Forced Labor: The British colonial authorities implemented various forms of forced labor to serve their economic interests and infrastructure projects. Indian laborers, often from disadvantaged or marginalized communities, were coerced or compelled to work under harsh conditions without adequate compensation or rights. They were deployed in construction projects, road-building, railway construction, plantation agriculture, and other labor-intensive endeavors essential for colonial economic exploitation. Indentured Servitude: Indentured labor was another form of coerced labor prevalent during the colonial era. Indians, particularly from the impoverished regions of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, were recruited under deceptive or coercive schemes to work on plantations in distant British colonies such as Mauritius, Fiji, Trinidad, and South Africa. Indentured laborers endured grueling work conditions, limited freedoms, and minimal rights, akin to slavery in many respects. Penal Colonies: The British established penal colonies as punitive measures for various forms of dissent, resistance, or criminal activities perceived as threats to colonial authority. These colonies served as sites of punishment and forced labor for political prisoners, rebels, and individuals deemed subversive to British rule. Notable penal colonies in India included the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands, where prisoners, particularly those involved in the Indian independence movement, endured extreme hardships, torture, and isolation.

[@DukeDennisDisciple]

Lol British people were practicing torture methods that everyone would call Barbaric, no way you think they have any moral high ground to tell others about how they practice their traditions

[@in6087]

Woke was transmitted by fleas on rats in trade ships sailing from the US to the UK

[@sandihill669]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@macmcc3201]

Jordan and Sowell are pure genius 😊

[@jiahan3849]

It is time to learn the truth. Thank you Mr. Jordan Perterson

[@EmmaLanik13]

@@jiahan3849 some don't consider mr. Peterson worth listening to.

[@jiahan3849]

@@EmmaLanik13 There are always idiots in the world.

[@tinyprawnie8101]

Jeez, so much what-aboutism in these comments. It doesn't have to be so black and white. You can be thankful/proud of the British for their role in ending slavery while also condemning their role in other historical ventures. Have some common sense.

[@jamesbyrnes716]

I'm irish, tell me why we should be proud of the English for "ending slavery" Entertain me with ignorance

[@tinyprawnie8101]

@@jamesbyrnes716 They played a major role in ending slavery. Slavery is bad, so ending it is good.

[@OriginalNiceButOdd]

@@jamesbyrnes716 The Irish were terrible slavers. St Patrick himself was an Englishman taken to Ireland by Irish slavers. Irish people have stuff to be ashamed of as well my guy. I am Irish/Cornish/Scottish, so not anti Irish in any way, just like facts to be factual.

[@gerardtimings5625]

St Patrick was either Welsh or Scottish (according to recent research,)

[@Rid3thetig3r]

​@@jamesbyrnes716 Picked the King instead of Parliament, got crushed by Cromwell, salty ever since. Cry me river Paddy.

[@wishunter9000]

Wasn’t his name William Wilberforce?

[@gdok6088]

Yes.

[@simonl2072]

The principals we hold today were built on the lessons of the past.

[@hemlock527]

Historical facts on colonialism and slavery are a mere bonus. The stronger basis for this argument is simply the direction of migration the last 100 years, into the colonising countries.

[@jdg7327]

Slavery is "profitable"... up to a certain extent. Free labor is always better than no labor. Anybody with a bit of brain cells should be able to understand that. To say that The Imperial British were not evil is like saying Colonialist are Good Samaritans. They never are and rarely will. The Brits started to abolish slavery because it no longer became profitable and tenable to continue doing so. What JBP needs to do is to dissociate from the rose tinted glass of nostalgia for Imperialism. Even a lauded saint has few skeletons in their closet. Yes, we shouldn't dismiss the "Good" that Britain did, but we shouldn't also hide under the rug the blood in their hands.

[@keithjohnsonYT]

“…of things unknown, but longed for still.” 💋 (…the only game in town Rudolph.)

[@seanmoran2743]

In short Humanity has done many great and wonderful deeds and works It has also done the opposite in equal measure

[@kiaraditmasa]

We often hear the tired refrain that Africa somehow "benefited" from European colonization, as if the imposition of foreign rule, the theft of resources, and the deliberate underdevelopment were somehow gifts to the continent. This argument is not only deeply flawed but also reveals a disturbing ignorance of history. The truth is, we do not-and cannot-know how Africa would have developed without the violent interference of colonization. To claim otherwise is to ignore the agency of African societies, the rich histories of trade, art, governance, and science that were flourishing long before Europeans set foot on the continent. It's to pretend that Europe, which itself was embroiled in centuries of bloody conflict, magically became a civilizing force in Africa. Let's take a look at the context that Europe conveniently forgets when it casts itself as the "savior" of Africa. Europe was not exactly a bastion of peace and prosperity before it colonized the world. For centuries, European countries were at each other's throats, engaged in brutal wars that wiped out millions. The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) alone caused an estimated 8 million deaths, while the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) claimed another 3.5 million lives. Fast forward to the 20th century, and the carnage only escalates: World War I resulted in over 16 million deaths, and World War II saw a staggering 70 to 85 million people perish. These are numbers we know, but let’s consider what we don’t: How might Africa have evolved had it not been subjected to the same European aggression, violence, and exploitation that Europe inflicted upon itself? Africa's potential for self-determination was systematically dismantled by colonization. Entire civilizations were destabilized or destroyed; their economies restructured for the sole benefit of the colonizers. Kingdoms like Benin, Mali, and Great Zimbabwe-known for their complex societies, trade networks, and cultural achievements-were brought to their knees by European greed. These were not societies in need of "saving." They were sovereign nations that had their own trajectories, their own forms of governance, trade, and innovation, and yet they were derailed by a European project of conquest, enslavement, and exploitation. ### Human Cost of British Colonialism in Africa The scale of devastation brought upon Africa by British colonialism alone is staggering. Historical data indicates that British colonial rule led to the deaths of millions of indigenous Africans, not just through direct violence but also through the structural violence of policies that led to starvation, disease, and displacement. 1. **Congo Free State (1885-1908)**: Though technically under the control of King Leopold II of Belgium, the Congo Free State is often cited as one of the most brutal examples of European colonial exploitation. Over 10 million Congolese people are estimated to have died due to forced labor, starvation, and systemic violence during this period. Britain, complicit in allowing Leopold's reign of terror, did nothing to stop it. This scale of loss is not just a number; it represents the obliteration of entire communities, languages, cultures, and ways of life. 2. **Kenya**: During the Mau Mau uprising (1952-1960), British colonial forces engaged in a systematic campaign of torture, rape, detention, and execution against the Kikuyu people in Kenya. Estimates suggest that at least 90,000 Kenyans were killed or executed, while 160,000 were detained under inhumane conditions. Yet, the psychological and social damage of this brutal period extends far beyond the numbers-a trauma inflicted upon generations. 3. **South Africa**: Under British rule, South Africa saw a series of genocidal actions, including the deliberate extermination of indigenous communities such as the San and KhoiKhoi during the 18th and 19th centuries. The British colonial forces employed “scorched earth” policies during the Boer War (1899-1902), leading to the deaths of over 26,000 Afrikaner women and children in concentration camps, as well as an unknown number of Black South Africans who were similarly imprisoned and subjected to appalling conditions. 4. **Nigeria**: The British colonization of Nigeria led to numerous punitive expeditions, with tens of thousands of Nigerians killed in direct military confrontations. Moreover, Britain's divide-and-rule tactics stoked ethnic tensions that have led to long-standing conflicts. The British extracted resources, disrupted local economies, and imposed foreign governance structures that have left lasting scars on Nigerian society. ### Colonization’s Broader Human Toll British colonialism was not limited to these infamous cases. The ripple effects of British imperialism led to the deaths of countless indigenous people across Africa, often through less direct means-like famine, which followed forced cash crop cultivation that replaced subsistence farming. In the Bengal Famine of 1943, a colonial policy diverted grain from starving Indians to British troops, leading to an estimated 3 million deaths. Similar policies were enacted in African colonies, resulting in mass starvation and death. But let's be clear: The most profound violence of colonization was not just the physical annihilation of human lives but the destruction of cultures, languages, religions, and social structures. Colonization erased or undermined countless indigenous forms of governance, education, and social cohesion, leaving a legacy of fractured societies and perpetual instability. ### The Modern-Day Consequences: Immigration and Instability Now, let's connect the dots to today. The same European powers that colonized and looted Africa for centuries now bemoan the influx of immigrants and refugees, fleeing conditions that Europe itself had a massive hand in creating. From destabilized governments to broken economies, the root causes of migration from Africa to Europe can often be traced back to the legacies of colonial rule. The irony is staggering: The very nations that dismembered Africa's path to development now claim moral outrage over the inevitable consequences of their actions. So, when Britain and other European countries attempt to whitewash their colonial past and portray themselves as the champions of abolition or development, they ignore a fundamental truth: We do not-and cannot-know how Africa would have thrived without the scars of colonization. Europe’s violent interference deprived Africa of its agency, its possibilities, and its right to determine its own future. And the idea that Britain, after centuries of colonial exploitation, now deserves credit for stopping a horror it helped orchestrate is not just offensive; it is a rewriting of history that insults the intelligence of anyone who knows the facts. To all who believe the myth of the "civilizing mission": save your breath. History is not on your side. The world remembers, even when you choose not to.

[@jamesa2482]

We should have never abolished it

[@NoahSteckley]

This is one of the things I’ve loved about Peterson. The ingenuity to say publicly a genuinely insightful new idea (new to me) that changes the way the world and history seems. “Colonialism is not synonymous with slavery.” Ha! It seems to obvious after you point it out, yet so much discussion has just assumed otherwise. Very nice to hear, as it seems much closer to people’s accurate intuitions about what was good and what was bad in our past. Love to hear reductionistic moralistic interpretations pushed back.

[@arunnaik3375]

Colonialism was far worse than slavery.

[@NoahSteckley]

@@arunnaik3375 What do you have in mind with "colonialism", and what makes you draw that conclusion?

[@arunnaik3375]

@@NoahSteckley The British often perceived the Irish as "savages", and they used Ireland as an experimental laboratory for the other parts of their overseas empire, as a place to ship out settlers from, as well as a territory to practice techniques of repression and control. Entire armies were recruited in Ireland, and officers learned their trade in its peat bogs and among its burning cottages. Some of the great names of British military history - from Wellington and Wolseley to Kitchener and Montgomery - were indelibly associated with Ireland. The particular tradition of armed policing, first patented in Ireland in the 1820s, became the established pattern until the empire's final collapse. The British first moved into East Africa in the late 19th century, and Kenya was declared a Crown colony in 1920. In 1964, the colonial army began erecting a network of concentration camps. Historians estimate that 150,000 to 1.5 million Kikuyu people were detained. Conditions within the camps were atrocious, and people were systematically beaten and sexually assaulted during questioning. For much of its early history, the British ruled their empire through terror. The colonies were run as a military dictatorship, often under martial law, and the majority of colonial governors were military officers. "Special" courts and courts martial were set up to deal with dissidents, and handed out rough and speedy injustice. Normal judicial procedures were replaced by rule through terror; resistance was crushed, rebellion suffocated. No historical or legal work deals with martial law. It means the absence of law, other than that decreed by a military governor. Many early campaigns in India in the 18th century were characterised by sepoy disaffection. Britain's harsh treatment of sepoy mutineers at Manjee in 1764, with the order that they should be "shot from guns", was a terrible warning to others not to step out of line. Mutiny, as the British discovered a century later in 1857, was a formidable weapon of resistance at the disposal of the soldiers they had trained. Crushing it through "cannonading", standing the condemned prisoner with his shoulders placed against the muzzle of a cannon, was essential to the maintenance of imperial control. This simple threat helped to keep the sepoys in line throughout most of imperial history. To defend its empire, to construct its rudimentary systems of communication and transport, and to man its plantation economies, the British used forced labour on a gigantic scale. From the middle of the 18th century until 1834, the use of non-indigenous black slave labour originally shipped from Africa was the rule. Indigenous manpower in many imperial states was also subjected to slave conditions, dragooned into the imperial armies, or forcibly recruited into road gangs - building the primitive communication networks that facilitated the speedy repression of rebellion. When black slavery was abolished in the 1830s, the thirst for labor by the rapacious landowners of empire brought a new type of slavery into existence, dragging workers from India and China to be employed in distant parts of the world, a phenomenon that soon brought its own contradictions and conflicts. In India The prosperous two centuries-old weaving industry was shut down after the British flooded the local market with cheap fabric from northern England. India still grew the cotton, but the Bengali population no longer spun it, and the weavers became beggars. It’s said that India was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. The British East India Company began making avenues into the subcontinent in the 17th century, and India was established as a Crown colony in 1858. The British Raj systematically transferred the wealth of the region into their own coffers. In the north eastern region of Bengal, “the first great deindustrialization of the modern world” occurred. The prosperous two centuries-old weaving industry was shut down after the British flooded the local market with cheap fabric from northern England. India still grew the cotton, but the Bengali population no longer spun it, and the weavers became beggars. India suffered around a dozen major famines under British rule, with an estimated 12 to 29 million Indians starving to death. The Orissa famine occurred in north eastern India in 1866. Over one million - or one in three local people - perished. As the region’s textile industry was destroyed, more people were pushed into agriculture, and were dependent on the monsoon. That year, the monsoon was weak. Crops didn’t grow and many starved to death. The colonial administration didn’t intervene as the popular economic theory of the time reasoned that the market would restore proper balance, and the famine was nature’s way of responding to overpopulation. The British began invading Australia in 1788, under the pretext that it was terra nullis: a land with no owners. The High Court of Australia abolished the legal fiction of terra nullius in its 1992 Mabo versus Queensland (No 2) ruling. Around 15 months later, at least 50 percent of the local Aboriginal population was dying due to a smallpox epidemic. But these are only some of the crimes perpetrated by the British as they carried the greatest land grab the world has ever seen. There were the concentration camps in South Africa, where tens of thousands of the Boer population were detained in the first years of the 20th century. The Irish potato famine occurred in the 1840s, leading to the deaths of well over a million people. There were the torture centers in Aden in the 1960s, where nationalists were kept naked in refrigerated cells. When the Empire was facing communist insurgents during the Malaya Emergency of the 1950s, they simply decided to imprison the entire peasant population in detention camps. And the list goes on…

[@arunnaik3375]

@@NoahSteckley Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors - rebels and loyalists - and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written. Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died. The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound. Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning. The myths of empire are so well-established that you appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practiced by other nations. Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits,” referring to the Bengal famine in 1943, where up to four million Bengalis starved to death, as food was diverted to British soldiers. Peaceful protestors demonstrated against British colonial rule in Amritsar India in 1919. Soldiers kept firing at them until they ran out of ammunition, killing up to 1,000 and injuring another 1,100 within ten minutes. The man who ordered the killings, Brigadier Reginald Dyer, was seen as a hero by the British public, who raised £26,000 for him as a thank you. In South Africa, during the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the British rounded up around a sixth of the Boer population - mainly women and children - and detained them in overcrowded camps, with little food. In a single year 10 per cent of the entire Boer population died in the camps, including 22,000 children.

[@EmmaLanik13]

@@arunnaik3375 why do we not read of these indian famines and other bad situations created by the british in their colonies on a high school level. These are only taught in history class at university...again ,these must be taught at a high school level so every student in canada, Australia and other former English colonies learn about realities of English colonialism. I also heard that nothing regarding the involvement of england in the trans atlantic slave trade is even mentioned in english history text books.

[@kforest2745]

You really need to start ditching phoney words like “evil” it’s ridiculous living in a comic book

[@jefferygist8983]

And that is how good people and things become evil.

[@kforest2745]

@@jefferygist8983 I don’t understand if your comment is for me or the title but anyway using a word like that is ridiculous it’s as though the Brits deserve credit for being evil. They’re egotistical crass not fkn supernaturals

[@lucumi3928]

'We're all children of the One True God', especially tied in with the idea of 'being your brother's keeper' is an incredibly profound statement.

[@arunnaik3375]

Tell that to the 100 million native Americans killed by the Europeans.

[@lucumi3928]

@@arunnaik3375 That was the idea behind the abolition of slavery, not its propagation.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@lucumi3928 Slavery was not abolished in British colonies until the early 1900s. But even then, they renamed slavery to indentured labor, and continued practicing slavery.

[@lucumi3928]

@@arunnaik3375 First of all indentured labour and slavery are not the same thing. Secondly, how does this at all dispute the effects ideas like this had on the abolition of slavery? If not ideas like this, what do you think led to the abolition of slavery?

[@arunnaik3375]

@@lucumi3928 That's just splitting hairs. Indentured laborers were often tricked or coerced into signing contracts that they did not understand. Once they arrived in their new homes, they were often unable to leave, even if they wanted to. Indentured laborers were often forced to work long hours, sometimes up to 18 hours a day. They were also often denied breaks or days off. Indentured laborers were paid very low wages, often less than what they would have earned in their home countries. This made it difficult for them to save money or send money home to their families. Indentured laborers were often housed in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. They were also denied access to healthcare, which led to high rates of disease and death. Indentured laborers were often subjected to physical abuse, including beatings, whippings, and even sexual assault. The atrocities that were done by the British under indentured labor were a violation of human rights. They caused great suffering and hardship for millions of people, and they have had a lasting impact on the countries that were affected. Hundreds of indentured labourers were stationed on the ship’s middle deck for the whole duration of the voyage, which could last 10-20 weeks, with periods of permitted sunlight and “fresh” air. Alongside issues of sickness, racial discrimination and violence from British officers on-board, women often faced threats and acts of sexual harm. British officers would intercept women during toilet breaks to offer sweet provisions in exchange for sexual favours. Documentation shows women having faced sexual harassment, inappropriate touching and, rape. British colonial sexist stereotypes also impacted women’s autonomy through dictating the supposed identity of all indentured women. Women were sexualised and branded as “subservient” and “meek”. Operating outside of these boundaries would be looked down upon by others within the wider community. In 1833, when slavery was abolished in the British Empire, a compensation of £20 million was paid to slave owners, not to the enslaved people who had suffered under slavery, but to those who had lost their "property" (i.e., the enslaved people). The £20 million compensation was a significant amount of money at the time, equivalent to about £300 billion today. It was paid out to slave owners in the form of government bonds, which they could then sell or use to invest. The £20 million compensation is a reminder of the complex legacy of slavery. It is a reminder of the economic and political power of slave owners, and it is a reminder of the fact that the abolition of slavery did not immediately end the suffering of the enslaved people. What led to the so-called 'abolition' of slavery? Read my comments below

[@g_m15]

Thanks to the machinery!

[@nullpexception]

White, British Christians -- to be more exact.

[@arunnaik3375]

Probably one of the most brutal Christian empires.

[@Gypsygeekfreak17]

@@arunnaik3375 have you seen islam

[@Gypsygeekfreak17]

@@arunnaik3375 islam is evil more evil the Christians

[@Gypsygeekfreak17]

@@arunnaik3375 diffrence is that christians are more accepting

[@arunnaik3375]

@@Gypsygeekfreak17 Then why are they at my door almost every month, denigrating my religion and asking me to convert to Christianity ?

[@Post_and_Ghost]

Pretty sure that Denmark beat them by a few years. The British were the first to enforce abolish globally.

[@islandmarketer]

because as they said in the video that the brits had the empire to enforce it...

[@KopperNeoman]

England were there ever since William the Conqueror's day. Slavery was never legal in Britain, but it wasn't unconstitutional until a while later.

[@arunnaik3375]

The slave trade was actually abolished in 1807. The 1833 Slavery Abolition Act abolished, as the name suggests, slavery itself. A Treasury so loose with its facts might explain something about the state of the British economy. Worse, however, was the claim that British taxpayers helped “buy freedom for slaves”. The government certainly shelled out £20m (about £16bn today) in 1833. Not to free slaves but to line the pockets of 46,000 British slave owners as “recompense” for losing their “property”. Having grown rich on the profits of an obscene trade, slave owners grew richer still from its ending

[@JG-ib7xk]

​@@arunnaik3375would you have preferred they did nothing and let slavery continue?

[@scatton61]

My taxes, up to 2015, were used to pay back the loan the government took out to pay for the abolition of slavery. Reparations paid....

[@MrSilverback62]

The darling of the left, Charles Darwin expressed his view on various races in the COMPLETE title of his famous book. Alas, everyone quotes only the part of the title that supports their view.

[@matthewreid6495]

Well, considering most people don't know that people more commonly had slaves that were the same race as them, I highly doubt there would be many people that would thank the Brits for their freedom. I was of course not there when all this went down so, take it with a pinch of salt and have a great day ;)

[@KopperNeoman]

That's why the war on slavery was so remarkable. Redcoats sailed halfway around the world to make people stop bloody slaving.

[@arunnaik3375]

Didn't the industrial revolution reduce the demand for slaves?

[@lkececi7513]

Indentured slaves too - this is mentioned in ROOTS

[@charlesc.9012]

No, it would increase the need. Industrial manufacturing needs unprecedented amounts of raw materials, so all the overseas cotton plantations and mines have an unlimited demand for slaves. That is why Britain was so unique. The muslim slave trade was the biggest in history, and instead of leveraging British power to take over the economic benefits of global slavery, they chose to remove it. In addition, it was in a time of inequality and before genetics, so the Brtis were taking a hit to their own lives to free inferiors who they would probably never meet or feel gratitude to them for, especially the arab slaves who had nothing to do with them

[@janedough4608]

Well they certainly perfected it with the Africans.

[@MichaelLamming]

You're forgetting the enlightenment thinking and changes in philosophical thinking.. but most of all You're forgetting that 99% of the British people were against slavery, not for religious reasoning but moral. The British have never been very religious, people would go to church but wouldn't really believe in it.

[@arunnaik3375]

Oh, of course, how could anyone forget the marvelous enlightenment thinking and philosophical changes that magically made 99% of the British population staunchly against slavery out of pure moral goodness? Clearly, the masses were just sitting around, sipping tea, and philosophizing about the inherent immorality of slavery, rather than benefiting from the vast economic gains it provided. And yes, it’s absolutely believable that the British, who were apparently so secular and morally advanced, just happened to overlook their churches' extensive involvement in supporting and justifying slavery. The idea that the British were never very religious is just adorable. It's not like the Church of England was deeply entwined with the state or that religious justifications for slavery were rampant. But let's definitely rewrite history to fit this charming narrative of a morally superior, enlightenment-driven Britain that heroically stood against slavery from the goodness of its heart, rather than from the relentless pressure of abolitionist movements and economic shifts. Bravo for the historical fantasy!

[@Alfie-ft3bx]

I wouldn’t say that’s especially when you look at the Elizabethan it was compulsory for that time were very religious

[@davewolfy2906]

​@@Alfie-ft3bx compulsory to appear to be religious.

[@Alfie-ft3bx]

@@davewolfy2906 well, you couldn’t say you were an atheist

[@davewolfy2906]

@@Alfie-ft3bx Quite. Awful consequences.

[@marceldavidmitchell]

I would be interested in knowing the books that Peterson is reading regarding slavery.

[@Youtubax]

I’m a blue eyed spaniard whose ancestry is half african muslim half caucasian european. Shit my guilt awareness just sky rocketed just by thinking about the atrocities ALL OF THEM commited. I’m even beyond the white guilt label group 😂

[@andyshinskate]

This is more important: Mathew 20:26-28 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

[@sirjosephwhitworth9415]

Being white, an indigenous from Albion that is, the reality was such that when Britain proposed the halting of the slave trade followed by slavery, it was because it suited Britain. The Portuguese started the European trade, and were the last to stop it, however all the empires were at it, including the Africans (in fact they perpetuated the business. and still do), Arabs, another race pinched many black Africans. This little island didn't purloin the biggest empire by being nice. Blacks were just a commodity, simple.

[@sandihill669]

Arabs/muslims pinched many a white Englander too.

[@rahulkulkarni536]

How about you just let the subjects decide for themselves

[@LiamLewyShepherd]

Who's saying they can't?

[@IanDuckworth-n4b]

You should really study more. Slavery was banned in Englad in 1086 A.D. It was said that any slave who put their foot on English soil was free.When Frederick Douglas visited my town of Rochdale a slave the local people bought his freedom. He said I came Rochdale a slave and left a free man. Ian Duckworth.

[@arunnaik3375]

Ah, I see you've unearthed a delightful piece of folklore! How quaint. Let's begin with the basics: Slavery wasn't "banned" in England in 1086 A.D. The date you're referencing, 1086, is from the Domesday Book, which, if anything, detailed the existence of unfree people (serfs) rather than their emancipation. Slavery in England evolved over centuries, and the idea that any slave who set foot on English soil was instantly free is a romanticized oversimplification. The famous Somerset case of 1772 did set a precedent for challenging slavery in England, but it wasn't some ancient decree from the medieval period. As for Frederick Douglass, bless your heart for the mention. Yes, he did indeed speak highly of the support he received from British abolitionists during his time in the UK. But please, let's not warp history into some fairy tale. Douglass was an incredibly astute man who leveraged British sentiment against slavery to further his cause, but this does not retroactively bestow medieval England with an enlightened stance on slavery. In short, do brush up on your history a bit more thoroughly. The past is far more complex-and far less flattering-than the stories we sometimes like to tell ourselves.

[@mmcc5846]

Ian duckworth thats why they workhouses until the 1930s isn't that not child slavery didn't dickens write about that

[@keegan8517]

I want to know where you can find all of this history on slavery across other nations.

[@ginashiel105]

Start reading the Bible....

[@ram5ramen582]

do you not have internet access?

[@johnmulvey5121]

There was not slavery in Ireland. during the colonial period.

[@JohnnyWest-e8y]

i would distinguish between the question of whether European slavery means Europeans were uniquely evil - which is clearly self-centred - and the question of whether slavery and other forms of exploitation were the basis of the British Empire. On the first question, yes it's true that slavery has existed evreywhere and is not a "white" phenomenon. But it is worth pointing out that it has existed in very different degrees and forms. For instance, slavery existed in ancient China but was a very marginal phenomenon. It was never the basis of entire sectors of the economy, such as in the Roman Empire or anti-bellum USA. On the second question, if we were to broaden the question to all infringements of liberty, in addition to slavery there was widespread indentured labour - and of course in India compulsion in livelihoods such as textiles. Also, the assertion that only "some people" were involved in the slave trade is clearly true in a narrow sense. But it is worth remembering that the slave business was entirely integrated into early capitalism - there were companies with shareholders, and the shareholder base was spread very widely among the middle classes, as has emerged recently in the records of compensation paid to shareholders in slave companies. When you add it all up, it seems at least an open question that the degree of exploitation was considerable - and of a scale that it would be fair to say that the British empire would not have been as we know it without that exploitation. It is a clear and major part of the picture..

[@R0d_1984]

Nobody talks about the ethnicity who owned the East Indian company (even many of the ships)...

[@xcatter27]

Wooo title got me, was like what JBP is defending slavery? But then fantastic content as usual. Thanks JBP

[@islandmarketer]

interesting comment, as you openly admit you was badly informed before hand.

[@SvenBlumer]

In response to the initial issue - I would suggest that it's not racism, but perhaps elitism in the name of nationalism that is to blame for this hubris. The usual excuse for tyranny. The racism supposition is bait, and a ruse that works very well in many contexts to aid as a diversionary strategy, as it is very charged and polarises to a high degree. I don't mean to discount any relevant cases of racism, but in this case, as in most geo-political contexts it is the war for power, domination and wealth that are at fault and most probably the reason why Cecil John Rhodes and his roundtable of arrogant elitists should be dismantled. The British are not evil, and at the same time they have harboured much of it under the guise of nationalism, have successfully swept it under the carpet, and very few have the grit or the knowledge to mention it. Of course the British are not the only nation to have done so, but that much is obvious. Jordan, thanks for this - please could you do an expose of how, while the British as all nations are most certainly not evil, they do have a lot of blood on their hands; if not the most in human history. The Romans taught them well. For this endeavour I would recommend delving into the history of the Cecil John Rhodes Roundtable - the links to the South African Gold and Diamond mines - the British Department of Foreign affairs - the British Media manipulation and propaganda and strategy leading to World War 2. And then, as usual, follow the money and those who stood to gain. All the way down the rabbit hole to the city of London central banking ;)

[@arunnaik3375]

" The British are not evil, and at the same time they have harboured much of it under the guise of nationalism, have successfully swept it under the carpet, and very few have the grit or the knowledge to mention it" Oh, really? The British aren't evil, you say? Just masters of sugar-coating centuries of atrocities under the guise of nationalism. Bravo on that sweeping-under-the-carpet technique; it's almost as impressive as the empire built on the backs of enslaved and colonized people. And you're right-few have the grit or the knowledge to mention it. Convenient, isn't it? Ignorance must be bliss when you're on the winning side of oppression.

[@jonathannorris8992]

As a Brit I can tell you that slavery was massively important to the British economy for some years. Anyone in Britain who disagrees with me, fine, but if you do take a weekend trip to Bristol where I lived for 10 years. The first time I went there to see a lady I had met at a party in Farnborough I was absolutely blown away by the massive wealth that was evident there. I knew London fairly well but you could see the hundreds of years the wealth of the capital had grown. But Bristol, literally over night. The money came from the golden triangle, Bristol traders, to Africa, slaves taken from there, shipped to the Caribbean and swapped for sugar and rum and coco. Back to Bristol, the wealth generated was massive.

[@daniellastuart3145]

it was important to a lot Economy's in Europe, America's and Africa and the Middle East at the time. but you take way the money Britain spent in Ending the trade, then i think we have paid a lot of that money back And ,maybe some of the other country's could do the same. Or we could just say it over 200 years ago so lets move on a sort today issues out first that have an impact on us now

[@michaelmorgan9289]

Oh dear! As a British person I doubt very much that slavery was that important as much as you imply to the UK economy. May I refer you to the living conditions & life expectancy of the majority of people in the UK during that period. At least 98% of UK citizens did not directly benefit from the Slave Trade. So when I hear Lefty do gooders who through their self imposed ignorance telling me that I am responsible for historical slavery my answer will always be that "why should I who never owned or used a slave give reparation to those who have never been slaves?

[@arunnaik3375]

True. Slavery was inextricably intertwined with the economic and industrial ascension of Britain, serving as the bedrock upon which the British Empire's prosperity was erected. The exploitation of enslaved individuals underpinned the burgeoning wealth generated by the transatlantic trade, with sugar, tobacco, and cotton plantations becoming linchpins of British commerce. The mercantile elite accrued vast fortunes, catalyzing the Industrial Revolution and precipitating advancements in infrastructure and technology. Financial institutions, shipping industries, and insurance companies all burgeoned from the profits of human bondage, cementing slavery’s paramount significance in the British economic matrix. The abhorrent commodification of human lives was not merely a peripheral activity but a central pillar of Britain's global dominance, sustaining the empire's preeminence for centuries. To understate the critical role of slavery in Britain's imperial narrative would be to obfuscate the grim realities of its historical economic development.

[@michaelmorgan9289]

@@arunnaik3375 I can see by the emotive content of your comment that you must feel some association with the "enslaved" ones. But you have to bear in mind that there was no slavery allowed when the British were initially in India other that that the Local Rajahs practised & was eventually banned when the British eventually took control of India. When the British colonised Africa thay didn't enslaved anyone but on the contrary banned it outright & introduced British Law & similar institutions. Therefore if you feel aggrieved by events that took place before the British Empire was fully established perhaps you should look elsewhere & blame those who were ACTUALLY responsible for the acquisition of & selling of African slaves. I know it's easy to blame the British for everything & to give no credit to all the good they'd done during the time of Empire. But without British influence due to colonisation where would many of those countries be today?

[@arunnaik3375]

@@michaelmorgan9289 Your attempt to absolve the British Empire of responsibility by shifting blame is as disingenuous. The British did not simply "introduce" laws and institutions in India and Africa; they imposed them while exploiting these regions for their own gain. The claim that British rule was benign overlooks the systemic exploitation, violence, concentration camps, torture camps and cultural erosion inflicted upon these societies. Some local rulers or Rajahs in pre-colonial India practiced various forms of servitude and bonded labor. The nature and extent of these practices varied across different regions and periods, but they were nowhere near the industrial-scale system of slavery practiced by Britain. When the British East India Company and later the British Raj established control, they encountered and sometimes interacted with these existing systems. While the British did implement some legal reforms, their primary motivation was often to consolidate power and economic control rather than purely to address social issues. The abolition of slavery in British territories was a result of both internal and external pressures, not merely the benevolence of the empire. They paid off the slave owners and not the slaves themselves; is that an example of British benevolence? And while it’s convenient to romanticize British "benefits," this ignores the profound suffering caused by colonial rule and the long-lasting repercussions of imperialism. The real credit should go to those who resisted, fought for their rights, and rebuilt their societies despite colonial exploitation-not to those who perpetuated the injustices in the first place. The notion that former colonies owe their current state to British influence ignores the resilience and agency of the people who fought against oppression and rebuilt their societies despite colonial exploitation. Many countries would have faced fewer obstacles to progress without the enduring scars of colonialism. Rather than romanticizing the Empire, it's crucial to confront its full impact and recognize the complex reality of its legacy.

[@arunnaik3375]

Following the end of the slave trade in the early 19th century, the British replaced slavery with an indentured servitude system in which more than 1.6 million Indians were brought to work in European colonies. After slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, the French colonies in 1848, and the Dutch Empire in 1863, the system was expanded. Till the 1920s, British Indians were subject to indentureship. This led to the formation of major Indian diasporas in the Caribbean, Natal (South Africa), East Africa, Réunion, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Fiji, as well as people of Indian descent in the Caribbean, Africa, Fiji, Malaysia, and Singapore. The so called "abolishment of slavery" is malarkey

[@adaptivelearner6162]

Not really even if that's true it's still a moral improvement and you must remember indentured servitude doesn't equal slavery so, it was a moral improvement the abolishment of slavery was not "malarkey" as you put it.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@adaptivelearner6162 Well, both slaves and indentured servants could be sold, loaned, or inherited. And I would prefer neither. The finer points may differ, but come on.....

[@arunnaik3375]

@@EvsEntps If you think people left their homes and travelled 1000s of miles for indentured service, out of choice, then you are deluding yourself. Many individuals were forced into indentured servitude due to circumstances beyond their control, such as poverty, debt, or social pressures Both systems involved the exploitation and subjugation of individuals. Indentured servants faced significant hardships, including harsh living conditions, limited legal protections, and the possibility of physical punishment for wrongdoings. But hey, if you want to delude yourself, go ahead.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@EvsEntps And then went on to kill 4 million or so, Bengalis by starvation during World War 2.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@EvsEntps Wow, you have no clue of history do you? Before the British, neighboring kingdoms used to help out others during famines, but this was stopped by the British. A total of 50 million Indians died of starvation under British rule, because the British actively prevented neighboring kingdoms from helping others. There was no explosive population growth in India. Both China and India have had large population since pre-historic times, because of the access to the third largest fresh water source in the world During the great Bengal famine during the World War II when 4 million people died because Winston Churchill deliberately as a matter of written policy proceeded to divert essential supplies from civilians in Bengal to sturdy tommies and Europeans as reserve stockpiles. He said that the starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis mattered much less than that of sturdy Greeks' - Churchill's actual quote. And when conscious stricken British officials wrote to him pointing out that people were dying because of this decision, he peevishly wrote in the margins of file, “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?"

[@andyreginald9272]

What Greece was to Rome, Britain is to America

[@daniellastuart3145]

that be an interesting book to read

[@arunnaik3375]

The role played by the Church of England in the grand tapestry of colonization is one of profound significance, but overlooked. It found itself intertwined with the fervor of European expansion, with each thread interlaced with ambitions of empire-building and religious influence. At the heart of this role lay the assertion of Christian superiority, a doctrine that bestowed upon the colonizers a divine mandate to bring forth their faith, culture, and governance to lands deemed "uncivilized" and inhabited by "heathen" souls. The church became the wellspring of moral support, providing the necessary justification for the enterprise, as the endeavor to spread Christianity was perceived as an ordained calling. A tapestry of missions unfolded, for the Church of England founded missionary organizations and dispatched envoys to distant colonial territories, their purpose twofold: to convert the indigenous peoples to Christianity and to align them with European values and customs. These missions stood as agents of cultural assimilation and served to bolster the imposition of Western norms upon the original inhabitants. The alignment of church and state further fortified the colonial endeavor, as the monarchy, serving as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, forged a closely knit alliance. Thus, the expansion of the British Empire was perceived as the expansion of both church and state, firmly intertwining the destinies of religion and colonial dominion. The educational realm also fell under the church's purview, as it exercised control over the colonial education system. Schools and institutions operated under its auspices, imparting Christian doctrines and British culture, molding the minds of the colonial subjects in line with European ideals. Alongside these pursuits, the Church of England held considerable land holdings both within England and beyond the seas, further anchoring its interests within the colonial landscape. In this intricate tableau, social control wove yet another thread. The church emerged as an instrument of shaping colonial subjects, encouraging the adoption of British customs, dress, and language, a conduit to mold the aspirations and comportment of the subjugated populace. Within this expansive tableau, it must be acknowledged that the role of the Church of England did not uniformly unfold across all colonies or throughout the course of history. It was marked by a variety of attitudes and approaches, with some church officials and missionaries showing compassion and advocating for a more considerate treatment of indigenous peoples. Still, the overall impact of the church's involvement in colonization remains indelible, bearing witness to the profound and lasting consequences of European expansion on indigenous cultures and societies.

[@guilhermecorrea9483]

You bring up very interesting facts here and in other comments. The "superiority complex" seems to have been inherited by the US. I've read some arguments about the Civil War being the end of what America was originally meant to be. It is hard to argue against the people who claim to have ended slavery, as it instantly turns you into pro-slavery. In my country, Brazil, some people who defended a gradual end of slavery were accused of that. But I digress - there is an obvious pattern in the UK and US industrial advance and enforcement of the end of slavery. It somehow resonates to the whole spectrum of contemporary attitudes we see in progressive agendas. Am I missing something here? Where can I find more information or a better elaboration of these ideas?

[@conanclarke9308]

A lot of east indians suffer from diabetes contributed by the British who caused famines by exporting foods from India. A lot of conflicts in Africa and middle east are caused by the legacy of British colonistsmaking artificial countrys that ignored ethnic lines. Divide amd conquer was the ply of the British. I wonder has peterson ever spoken to the victims of blood sunday from northern Ireland.

[@LiamLewyShepherd]

Are you referring to type 1 diabetes?

[@invisibleman4827]

If the British Empire was run by communists you'd be cheering it on all the way.

[@Kaiserbill99]

Such a weak comment. I cannot even summon the effort to correct your pitiful insight.

[@tommccanlis]

The Danish were the first to outlaw the slave trade in 1797. Please correct me if I'm wrong

[@sandihill669]

William the Conqueror almost 800 years earlier.

[@tommccanlis]

@@sandihill669 he only taxed it, which gradually made it fall out of fashion

[@joshuamorrison8332]

Well the British abolished slavery about 700 years before they started up again. This wasn't some edict from the church either. The king and people simply found the practice to be morally reprehensible. So it isn't a matter of looking at past events through a modern prism. They knew they were doing wrong at the time

[@arunnaik3375]

Yes it was so morally reprehensible that they paid £20 million (equivalent to about £17 billion today) to compensate slave owners. This was a considerable sum, reflecting the economic value placed on enslaved individuals at the time. But that was an eyewash because a system called "apprenticeship" was introduced under which these "freed" individuals were required to work for their former owners for a period of 4-6 years before gaining full freedom. The apprenticeship system often perpetuated many of the abuses and exploitative practices of slavery. Freed individuals were still subject to harsh conditions and had limited autonomy.

[@kewaljo8850]

YES

[@jesquibel6969]

Entertaining

[@SigurdStormhand]

I think you need to see both sides of this. It's true that the British Empire was, for about 150 years, probably the largest transporter of slaves to the New World. The Portuguese transported more overall, but they were doing it longer. HOWEVER, it is also true that the British subsequently recognised the evils of slavery precisely because they could not ignore the evidence of their own eyes and worked to abolish it worldwide. It's also important to recognise that the Victorian British Empire, which is what most of us think of first, was *stridently* anti-slavery, and part of the British colonial project was the abolition of the practice in all British-governed territories.

[@arunnaik3375]

It is utterly misguided to glorify the British Empire for its belated and self-serving abolition of slavery while conveniently ignoring the vast scale of its initial complicity. The assertion that the British Empire deserves praise for recognizing the evils of slavery is akin to lauding an arsonist for eventually dousing the flames they themselves ignited. For over 150 years, the British were not merely passive participants but enthusiastic perpetrators in the transatlantic slave trade, reaping immense profits from the suffering and dehumanization of millions of African lives. To suggest that the British Empire's abolitionist stance in the Victorian era somehow redeems its previous atrocities is both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. The Victorian British Empire, while publicly condemning slavery, continued to benefit from exploitative practices and systemic racism in its colonies. The abolition of slavery was less about moral awakening and more about economic and political expediency, driven by shifting market dynamics and growing resistance from enslaved people and abolitionist movements. Moreover, the so-called "abolition" in British-governed territories did not eradicate exploitation; it merely morphed into other forms, such as indentured servitude and brutal colonial labor practices, which continued to oppress and exploit colonized peoples. The legacy of British colonialism is stained with blood and suffering, and attempts to paint it in a benevolent light are an affront to the countless lives destroyed by its actions. Instead of whitewashing history, it is imperative to confront and acknowledge the full extent of the British Empire's role in the perpetration of slavery and colonial violence. Only by facing these uncomfortable truths can we hope to learn from the past and strive for a more just and equitable world.

[@SigurdStormhand]

@@arunnaik3375 OK. Now judge every other contemporary state by the same standards. Consider the independent African states that captured and sold slaves to Europeans, a practice *ended* under British colonial rule. Until the 20th Century colonialism was the norm across all cultures. Slavery was the norm until the 19th Century, and Britain stands out as the first major power to enact effective, durable, legislation for its abolition not only at home but also in overseas Colonies. At the time there was no economic case to do so, and it cost the British Government something like a third of a year's budget to enact abolition. Ignoring that part of history is as disingenuous as ignoring Britain's participation in the slave trade.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@SigurdStormhand Let's dissect your statement with the scrutiny it demands. First, comparing the actions of contemporary states to colonial empires requires an understanding of scale and impact. The slave trade orchestrated by Europeans, including the British, was industrial in scale, unprecedented in its brutality, and driven by a global capitalist economy. The African states you mention did not engage in slavery with anywhere near the same reach or systemic cruelty as European powers. Second, using British abolition as a shield against criticism ignores the fact that Britain was one of the leading perpetrators of the transatlantic slave trade. Britain profited immensely from slavery for centuries before deciding to abolish it. Celebrating abolition without acknowledging the horrors that necessitated it is deeply disingenuous. In 1833, when slavery was abolished in the British Empire, a compensation of £20 million was paid to slave owners, not to the enslaved people who had suffered under slavery, but to those who had lost their "property" (i.e., the enslaved people). The £20 million compensation was a significant amount of money at the time, equivalent to about £300 billion today. It was paid out to slave owners in the form of government bonds, which they could then sell or use to invest. Furthermore, your claim that there was no economic case for abolition is historically inaccurate. The British economy was evolving, and industrial capitalism was rendering slavery less profitable compared to wage labor. The abolition was not purely altruistic; it was also influenced by economic shifts and growing resistance from enslaved people. Lastly, the cost of abolition to the British government does not absolve the moral and human costs inflicted upon millions of enslaved individuals. Britain's eventual decision to abolish slavery, while significant, does not erase its prolonged and brutal participation in the slave trade. Acknowledging the complexity of history requires honesty about both the atrocities committed and the efforts to rectify them. Britain's abolition of slavery is commendable, but it must be remembered alongside its extensive involvement in and profit from the very system it later dismantled.

[@SigurdStormhand]

@@arunnaik3375 I started writing a long reply, but then KZbin ate it, and it's not worth it. Let's break this down into some simple bullet points. 1. Africans, especially African monarchs, were fully complicit in the Atlantic Slave Trade. Not only did they procure slaves for the international market, but also for the domestic one. The keeping of slaves in Africa was just as brutal as in the New World. Oh, and Arabs castrated all their male slaves. 2. I never suggested that Britain was somehow "absolved" from participating in the slave trade. I simply pointed out that Britain was essentially unique in abolishing it. 3. The argument that slavery was becoming unviable is the same one used to argue the American Civil War was unjustified. It doesn't stack up given the level of resistance in Parliament or the fact that the government had to spend 300 billion in today's money to purchase the freedom of the slaves throughout the Empire. They called it the "triangle trade" for a reason. You are purposefully ignoring one point of the triangle.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@SigurdStormhand Your argument relies on a mix of historical half-truths and misleading comparisons to divert attention from the brutal reality of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the responsibility of European powers, including Britain. 1. Yes, some African monarchs and leaders participated in the Atlantic Slave Trade. However, framing them as "fully complicit" ignores the significant power imbalances and the coercive tactics used by European traders. African societies did not operate in a vacuum; they were often pressured, manipulated, or forced into these transactions. Moreover, the scale and nature of slavery within Africa were vastly different from the industrial-scale, racially based chattel slavery implemented by Europeans in the New World. Attempting to equate the two oversimplifies the issue and minimizes the distinct horrors of the transatlantic slave trade. 2. While Britain did eventually abolish the slave trade and slavery, this does not erase the centuries of brutal exploitation and the immense profits it reaped from the institution of slavery. The abolitionist movement was indeed significant, but it came only after immense suffering and resistance from enslaved people themselves. The British government’s decision to compensate slave owners, rather than the enslaved, underscores the ongoing prioritization of economic interests over genuine justice. 3. Your argument about the viability of slavery and the American Civil War is a red herring. The economic argument for the unviability of slavery does not negate the moral imperative for its abolition. The resistance in Parliament and the financial cost to the British government highlight the entrenched interests in maintaining slavery, not its economic viability. The fact that the government had to spend such a vast sum to abolish slavery reflects the deep entanglement of the British economy with the slave trade. Regarding the "triangle trade," acknowledging African and Arab involvement does not absolve European powers of their central role. The triangle trade was driven by European demand and capital, and it was Europeans who profited most from the enslavement and suffering of millions. Pointing fingers at African or Arab complicity is an attempt to deflect blame rather than address the full scope of the atrocity. In summary, your arguments serve more to muddy the waters than to illuminate the full, brutal reality of the Atlantic Slave Trade and Britain's significant role in it. Acknowledging the complexities should lead to a more honest and comprehensive understanding of this dark chapter in human history.

[@jeremiahnoar7504]

I would love to read a book on the history of slavery but I just know whatever book I pick up will have a "white people bad" undertone.

[@daniellastuart3145]

just read up on history in general and you find you end up with a balance view point anyway

[@jeremiahnoar7504]

@daniellastuart3145 I wish that were the case but there's hardly such a thing as a frame of reference without bias.

[@PM-gt9mh]

Who is this guy being interviewed by Jordan? I can‘t find his name anywhere

[@LupaBritannica2408]

It's Neil Biggar

[@johncollins211]

Really though it almost never happens that an oppresive group has such a profound moral and ethical turnaround.

[@jamesbyrnes716]

They were still murdering us Irish long after this so called moral crusade. Jordan is of course a protestant so he's ignoring that fact.

[@rahulkulkarni536]

It didn't. It ended the competition to maintain its hegemony. Africa is still being exploited. America is an extension of the British Empire

[@johncollins211]

@Rahul kulkarni I don't even know what to say about all that. Colonialism is over. First off china is exploiting africa a thousand times more than any current nation. China is buying up most of the land in Africa and building their own infrastructure there. The real reason Africa gets exploited is because the political leaders of Africa and African business men have absolutely zero issue with exploiting the rest of the population keeping them poor while they get rich. Tell me where are all these British and American leaders in Africa keeping the country poor? All I see is african leaders letting their people starve while they ride in the back of a Mercedes. Your bringing up shit from 200 years ago while ignoring the present state of Africa and its politics. You clearly have no idea what your talking about or are willfully ignoring that Africans have been exploiting each other the last 100 years.

[@Dushmann_]

​@@rahulkulkarni536 If India was the hegemonic world power instead of Britain, do you honestly believe that India would have been a more benevolent ruler? I highly, highly doubt it. Freedom, individual liberty, human rights, etc are uniquely British ideas. The world has no idea how lucky it was to have Britain as its master. They couldn't have found a more peaceful and compassionate ruler.

[@centurionguards3819]

It was Christians who fought tooth and nail to abolish slavery, but let's not think the British were not saints in their post-slavery operations in the colonies, Operation Legacy is another horrific indictment on occasionally Great Island. The records the British Empire didn't want you to see - Audra A. Diptée kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYGqh3qZoNNqobM

[@arunnaik3375]

Oh, absolutely, let’s make sure to give full credit to those tireless Christians for abolishing slavery, while conveniently glossing over the centuries they spent supporting and benefiting from it

[@Randy-Snorton]

Did we do bad things? Yes are we evil? No.

[@slaveryandushistory9386]

The only reason Northern states turned against slavery, was because they could no longer benefit from it. Abraham Lincoln didn't free the slaves. He renamed them Sharecroppers. Not Migrant Workers, not Tenant Farmers. But Sharecroppers AKA workers listed as "sharing" 1/3 of a plantation's earnings in the form of "Taxable Wages". Lincoln started the first income tax in 1860, then campaigned to turn black people into "sharecroppers", only he called it "Freeing the slaves". According to his plan, any individual earning less than $800 per year would be exempt. Not a problem for northern factory workers who only made $450 per year, and would still learn less than $750 as late as 1920. But blacks in the south were tagged as sharecroppers. A typical plantation made $150,000 per year. 1/3 of that, or $50,000 would be listed as the worker's share. So if a plantation had 50 blacks working, each would be listed as earning $1000. That's well above the $800 exemption limit, so the South had to continue to pay the North. Even if the black people didn't make that much, it didn't matter, The plantations had to cover the taxes for them. It's called EXTORTION. That's one of the reasons the South seceded. But it wasn't about slavery.

[@imankhandaker6103]

East India Company? British Raj? You realize that their accounts, over 2 centuries, are preserved in the India Office Library? You can stroll in today & confirm that the annual theft from India was GREATER THAN THE ENTIRE UK GDP - EVERY YEAR FOR 200 YEARS. Do you think that was evil?

[@yashsamuel]

when you say india which part and when saying india why doesnt delhi , mumbai and west bengal govt return their coal and gold taken from other places like jharkhand

[@imankhandaker6103]

@@yashsamuel ALL of India. Are you aware of the extent of Company & Raj rule. As for your comic comparison - I repeat the BRITISH STOLE MORE THAN THEIR ANNUAL GDP ... EVERY YEAR FOR 200 YEARS. Do you have any idea how much that is. Obviously not - or you would have never made the comparison. Let us just discount the first £1 trillion stolen as a rounding error for every thief - what debts remain? At today's rates of £2 trillion per year - that comes £400 TRILLION. How much loose change were you wanting for the coal dust?

[@yashsamuel]

@@imankhandaker6103 do you even understand the meaning of merchantile system? Are you not able to differentiate between merchantile system and looting?

[@yashsamuel]

@@imankhandaker6103 u am not saying British we're great, what I am saying is evil compared to what kingdom, the mughals?

[@yashsamuel]

@@imankhandaker6103 ofcourse you don't know how the rest of the kingdoms treated the underprivellaged like the tribals or the dalits, because you don't want to account for the slavery they had to endure during the rise of the kingdom like the mauryas.

[@GozUnlimited]

Football. Rugby. Cricket. You're welcome world.

[@arunnaik3375]

Concentration camps, brutal torture, rape, rampant pillaging, deaths by starvation-only a depraved soul could revel in such monstrous acts. But then again, you're British, so whitewashing these atrocities with arrogant indifference seems to be etched into your very national character.

[@mmcc5846]

Goz unlimited you English never invented football

[@juergenernst1320]

Much love, Dr, but the Brits only had to abolish slavery because they were still engaged in it when most everybody else had long abandoned it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no European power, such as France, Germany or the germanic states in lack of a unified country before 1870, Austria, Spain, or Italy were holding or trading slaves in their xountries or colonies when the Brits still did. For that very reason, none of these countries had to pass legislature to abolish slavery.

[@andywilliams7323]

I shall indeed correct you. England was the first European nation after Rome and Venice to abolish slavery and slaves within its borders in 1102. In 1787 Britain was the very first country in the world to found a political society dedicated to actively pursuing the abolition of Britain's involvement in the international slave trade. Inspired by Britain and following Britain's example, France founded their own political society dedicated to abolishing France's involvement in the international slave trade and further the abolition of slavery itself within the French Empire in 1788. France's abolition society was initially more successful and quicker at persuading initial policy change than Britain's society. France abolished slavery in all its colonies in 1794. However, during his rise to power, Napoleon re-introduced slavery in France's principal sugar-cane-growing colonies in 1802. Denmark-Norway, inspired by Britain's and France's abolition movements, became the first empire nation to abolish its involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1803. Thanks to the continued pressure from its abolition society, Britain abolished slave trading by all nations and privateers to and from its entire empire in 1807 and specifically tasked its Royal Navy to suppress slave trading by all non-allied nations and privateers in the Atlantic and later all oceans of the world. All Royal Navy ships were instructed to take every available opportunity to hunt down and arrest slave trading vessels and free all slaves imprisoned on the vessels. Britain was the first nation to do this. Increasingly from 1807 onwards, the British flag increasingly became the ultimate symbol of freedom among slaves worldwide. Increasingly, throughout the 19th century, slaves hoped and knew that if and when they saw a British flag, they were free. By 1865 around 150,000 slaves had been freed by just the Royal Navy's anti-slavery operations alone. Which does not include the thousands of slaves freed via Britain's later worldwide political power and persuasion listed below. Now, it should be said that, initially, Britain didn't pursue anti-slavery operations entirely out of the goodness of its heart. Initially, much of it was a case of "well, if we're going to self-deprive our economy of the benefits of the slave trade, then we're also going to make sure the economies of our enemies and rivals are deprived of it too, as best we can." Britain was able to do this thanks to heavily incapacitating the majority of the French and Spanish navies in the early period of the Napoleonic Wars, which resulted in and ensured that Britain had the largest, most powerful and dominant navy in the world for the following 140 years. Having won the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain firmly established itself as the dominant Superpower of the World. It then used its Superpower position to pay, convince and pressure multiple nations to abolish the slave trade and slavery. France permanently abolished their involvement in the slave trade in 1815, becoming the thrid nation to do so after Denmark-Norway and Britain. In 1815, Britain paid (bribed) its oldest ally, Portugal, £750,000 to abolish their involvement in the slave trade north of the equator. In other words, Britain bribed Portugal to only conduct slaving trading within its own specific trading routes and colonies, which were all south of the equator. 1817-1820 Britain paid (bribed) £400,000 and also pressured its then ally Spain to sign a treaty with Britain requiring Spain to abolish its involvement in the slave trade. However, Spain continued to secretly smuggle some slaves to its colonies until the early 1830s. 1818 Britain convinced the Netherlands to sign a treaty ending their involvement in the slave trade. 1823 Britain founded a political society dedicated to abolishing existing slavery in all of Britain's Dominions and Colonies. 1827 Britain convinces Sweden-Norway to sign a treaty ending their involvement in the slave trade. 1831 Due to significant continued pressure from Britain, Brazil banned the importation of slaves and freed all their existing slaves. 1834-1838. Britain gradually, over 4 years, abolished all existing slavery and freed all existing slaves in all of its Dominions and Colonies. It was the very first Empire nation to do this and make it permanent. 1839 The Pope and Catholic Church, having been pro-slavery and the slave trade, changed their position and resoundingly condemned it. 1840 Britain created and hosted the first World Anti-Slavery Convention in London. 1841 Britain and France convinced Russia, Prussia and Austria to sign a treaty agreeing to assist in suppressing the slave trade. 1842 Britain finally convinced its oldest ally, Portugal, to sign a treaty agreeing to abolish its involvement in the slave trade south of the equator and to help suppress it. 1843 With its ally Portugal no longer involved in and helping to suppress South American slave trading, Britain was able to convince the South American countries of Bolivia, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay to end their involvement in the slave trade. Many other South American countries followed of their own accord due to not being able to import slaves and due to following the examples of their neighbouring nations. 1847 Due to the Royal Navy's constant anti-slavery operations, the Ottoman Empire is finally forced to abandon and abolish its trade of slaves from Africa. 1848 Austria and France abolished slavery in all of their empires and colonies. They were the first Empire nations to permanently do so after Britain. 1849-1862 Many other minor countries, either of their own accord or from being convinced to do so by Britain, also abolished slave trading and slavery. 1863 The Netherlands was the next empire nation to abolish slavery in all of its colonies. 1865 The USA abolished slavery in 1865, resulting in the US Civil War. 1869 and 1870 Portugal and Spain (including inside Spain itself) were the next empire nations to abolish slavery throughout their empires. 1890 The Brussels Conference Act takes place to agree on a collection of anti-slavery measures to end the slave trade on land and sea, especially in the Ottman Empire and Central and East Africa. 1890-1950s multiple minor nations abolish slavery. None of the above would have happened if Britain had not led the way in deciding that slavery was wrong, had not led the way in ending slave trading and slavery and had not used its position and power as the World's superpower to actively suppress slave trading throughout the world and to force, convince and inspire all other nations to follow its lead. Britain was the first domino which caused all the other dominoes to fall.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@andywilliams7323 While it’s true that England made early moves against slavery and played a role in the abolition movement, claiming it was the very first nation to tackle the issue oversimplifies the historical context. The 1102 date refers to a church synod’s decree against the slave trade, but it did not end the practice or establish a legal framework for its abolition. Britain's establishment of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787 was indeed significant, and it marked a major step in organized anti-slavery activism. However, Britain’s own involvement in the transatlantic slave trade continued for decades after the society’s founding, and the impact of their abolition efforts was driven by a complex interplay of moral, economic, and political factors. France and other nations followed with their own reforms, but the broader reality is that many European powers were involved in, and benefited from, the slave trade and slavery for centuries. The legacy of these practices, including their economic and social impacts, is a crucial part of understanding the full history of abolition and the ongoing effects of colonialism.

[@andywilliams7323]

@@arunnaik3375 I didn't say England made early moves against slavery, nor that it played a role in the abolition movement, nor that it was the very first nation to tackle slavery. It did none of those things. England merely abolished slavery within its own borders in 1102, nothing more than that. It was not a church synod’s decree against the slave trade. It was a decree by King William the 1st of England and the London Council of England to abolish slavery in England and only England. It established legislation that banned and abolished slavery in England such that no one in England could be a slave and that any slave from outside England who entered England automatically became a free person. Britain's involvement in the slave trade did not continue for decades after the founding of its Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787. It only continued for 20 years after. Britain stopped all its involvement in the slave trade in 1807 and immediately took military measures to suppress other nations' involvement in slave trading, followed later on by additional political measures. In 1823, Britain founded the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery Throughout the British Dominions. Between 1834 and 1838, Britain abolished slavery in all of its colonies and freed all of its slaves. It was the very first Empire nation in all history to permanently do so. It then used its military and political power to persuade and/or force all of the other empires to do the same. Britain did not abolish its involvement in the slave trade and slavery within its colonies for economic reasons. That theory has been largely debunked by the majority of historians. Slavery was extremely profitable, hence why Britain paid compensation to slave owners to mitigate their loss of profits. Many of the European nations did indeed profit from slavery for centuries. But after Britain abolished it, all the other European nations did so within the next 60 years, most of them due to persuasion from Britain and later-on also France.

[@arunnaik3375]

​@@andywilliams7323 "England merely abolished slavery within its own borders in 1102, nothing more than that." There's some truth to the statement, but it's not the whole picture. The Council of Westminster in 1102 condemned slavery, but this did not translate into immediate or comprehensive abolition across England or the British Isles. Serfdom and various forms of bonded labor persisted for centuries thereafter. While it's true that Britain officially abolished the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, the claim that its involvement was short-lived and followed by immediate, effective suppression efforts oversimplifies a complex history. Even after the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, illegal trading persisted, and British merchants continued to profit from slavery through various indirect means. The economic structures built on slavery, including plantations in the Caribbean, continued to operate until the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which gradually emancipated slaves over several years. The wealth accumulated from the slave trade and slave labor had long-lasting impacts on British society and economy. Many British institutions and families continued to benefit financially from investments rooted in slavery well beyond 1807. *In 1823, Britain founded the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery Throughout the British Dominions. Between 1834 and 1838, Britain abolished slavery in all of its colonies and freed all of its slaves. It was the very first Empire nation in all history to permanently do so. It then used its military and political power to persuade and/or force all of the other empires to do the same* The Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery, founded in 1823, indeed aimed to end slavery, but the process was far from immediate. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 marked the beginning of the end, but the system of "apprenticeship" meant that many former slaves continued to work in conditions not much better than slavery until 1838. *When slavery was abolished, the British government paid £20 million-a colossal sum at the time-to slave owners as compensation for their "loss of property." The enslaved received nothing for their years of forced labor and suffering, highlighting a clear prioritization of property rights over human rights* Even after abolition, Britain's economy continued to benefit from the legacy of slavery. Industries and financial institutions that were built on the profits from slavery and the slave trade continued to thrive, and the economic disparities created by centuries of exploitation persisted. While it's true that Britain used its naval power to suppress the transatlantic slave trade and pressured other nations to abolish slavery, this was not purely altruistic. These efforts also served to expand British influence and undermine rival colonial powers. Moreover, suppression of the slave trade was often inconsistent and faced considerable resistance. The abolition of slavery did not instantly resolve the deep-seated racial and economic inequalities that had been entrenched by centuries of exploitation. Former colonies have had to grapple with these legacies, which continue to impact their development and social structures. *Many of the European nations did indeed profit from slavery for centuries. But after Britain abolished it, all the other European nations did so within the next 60 years, most of them due to persuasion from Britain and later-on also France* While it’s true that Britain’s abolition of slavery had a significant impact on the global abolition movement, the narrative that other European nations quickly followed suit solely due to British and later French persuasion is an oversimplification. Here are some points to consider: Varied Abolition Timelines: European nations abolished slavery at different times and under varying circumstances. While some were influenced by British and French abolitionist efforts, others were driven by internal pressures, slave revolts, economic changes, and other factors. For example, Denmark abolished the slave trade in 1803, ahead of Britain, and Sweden abolished slavery in 1847. Complex Motivations: The motivations for abolition were complex and often included economic factors (such as shifts from plantation economies to industrial economies), political considerations, and moral arguments. While British influence was significant, it was not the sole driver of abolition across Europe. Internal Resistance and Slave Revolts: Many European nations faced significant resistance from slave-owning interests and benefited from the labor of enslaved people long after the abolition of the slave trade. In many cases, it was the resistance and revolts by the enslaved themselves that forced the issue of abolition. Notably, the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804) played a crucial role in challenging the institution of slavery in the French Empire. Economic Shifts: The Industrial Revolution and changing economic realities made slavery less profitable and more politically untenable in many European countries. The shift from agrarian economies reliant on slave labor to industrial economies played a critical role in the abolitionist movements. Colonial Interests: Abolition was sometimes used to further colonial interests and assert control over other nations. Britain, for example, used its naval power to suppress the slave trade, which also served to weaken rival colonial powers and extend its own influence. Long-Term Effects and Legacies: The abolition of slavery did not immediately resolve the deep-seated economic and social disparities caused by centuries of exploitation. Many former colonies continued to suffer from the legacies of slavery, including economic underdevelopment and racial discrimination. In summary, while Britain’s abolition of slavery and subsequent efforts to persuade other nations were significant, the global abolition of slavery was a multifaceted process influenced by a variety of economic, political, and social factors. Acknowledging this complexity provides a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of history.

[@_Jack_Miller]

Modern slaves: fear, conform, consume. Propaganda and subliminal programming from marketing geniuses. Pay your taxes 🎉

[@rahulkulkarni536]

No. I was first. I was first. Me! Me! :(

[@swagkachu3784]

Thank you tommy

[@kforest2745]

00:20 So he reads a book and THEN SAYS “my sense, and correct me if I’m wrong…” YOU’RE WRONG. Your “sense” from a mere book means fkn nothing.

[@andrewshaw1571]

If its from the cambridge university press then its not a 'mere book' its peer reviewed.

[@kforest2745]

@@andrewshaw1571 what’s ‘peer reviewed’ but another term these days. Anyone can band their pompoms together and cheer ‘1, 2, 3, GO’

[@andrewshaw1571]

@@kforest2745 If you want to reject the credibility of academia, thats your call. The issues i have with peterson tend to revolve around issues he touches on where he stands against peer reviewed literature.

[@kforest2745]

@@andrewshaw1571 you will reconsider when you give yourself time to think about it that you don’t challenge academia says that any and all generations that follow unfortunately their time will be wasted. You have to be realistic it’s not like academics are saints there’s no such thing it’s not like they haven’t broken ethics or crossed boundaries or manipulated etc

[@andrewshaw1571]

@@kforest2745 I dont trust academics from the off, the peer review process is the best method we have of countering those independant corruptions of the people that run the system. I trust peer review simply as more reliable than anything else, especially a view with no credible backing. That peer review isnt always right isnt cue to act like its on par with random uninformed opinion, humanity does actually know some things and has some methods of confirming them, not everything is just a battle of unsupported opinion. Peer review is the manner of sorting that out.

[@andrewsjfc]

Interesting to see Peterson without the suit

[@tonybytheway7543]

I am English and very proud to be so. The British Empire brought education, medicine, infrastructure, government, law and order and so many other things to the countries it colonised. Yes slavery was wrong but pretty much every country in the world through the ages has taken slaves, the Romans, the Mayans, the Ottomans, the Egyptians, not to mention the Barbary Pirates of North Africa etc etc. Talking about reparations is stupid. Would the people demanding it give back all the things they wouldn't have if it weren't for the British Empire and return to their ancestral country with nothing as they had back then? I don't think so. Anyone can be a success in this world, you just have to work for it. Stop blaming others and wanting hand outs.....get off your backside and earn it.

[@arunnaik3375]

Oh, how quaint! The "Great British Hits" playlist is back on repeat, I see. Let’s break this down with the grace and wit that only the British can muster. First off, it’s positively charming how you’ve compiled a highlight reel of the British Empire’s greatest "gifts" to the world. Education, medicine, infrastructure-truly, what a lovely way to *dress up centuries of conquest, exploitation, concentration camps, starvation, torture, rape and a dash of good old-fashioned pillaging* And let’s not forget that colonialism was, at heart, a benevolent project, wasn’t it? So much so that the recipients of these "gifts" apparently just needed a gentle nudge from the Empire to realize how lucky they were. Never mind the cultural erasure, the famines, or the arbitrary borders that have fueled conflicts for decades. Details, details! As for the “everybody did slavery” defense-brilliant! I mean, what’s a little human misery among friends? The Romans did it, the Mayans did it, so why shouldn’t the British have their turn, right? If everyone else jumped off a cliff, well, why not? But let’s tip our hats to the British Empire for its unique flair in *transforming the brutal exploitation of millions into an industrial-scale enterprise* And reparations-oh, the absurdity! Imagine the chaos if former colonies demanded compensation for centuries of stolen wealth and labor. Preposterous! They should just be content with the railways and cricket, shouldn’t they? And surely, anyone can be a success, if they just roll up their sleeves and get to work, right? It's not like the entire system was historically rigged to benefit a tiny ruling class, no, no. Everyone had a fair shot, clearly. So here’s to you, the proud Englishman-clutching his empire's faded glories like a moth-eaten flag. It's always fascinating to see someone so enthralled with the notion that their nation’s benevolence is the gift that just keeps on giving, never mind the pillaging, exploitation, induced starvation, *killing children in concentration camps* and cultural erasure that came gift-wrapped with it. *And all this under a German monarchy!*

[@socialcommentator21]

The chatel slavery was started by americans if im not mistaken. Also: Im preety sure race based slavery was not common as much as it was in america. Someone correct me if im wrong. I think it was the case that people were taking everyone of every skin tone as slaves compared to america

[@JoyfulUniter]

No that would be God, thanks God, lol.

[@davemack7577]

Ultimatley it was about the law! William the Conqueror farbade the selling of serfs which then in the late 18th Century gave legal grounds to prrevent the deportation of a black esaceped slave!

[@kforest2745]

Stop talking about “slavery” like it’s over. It never fkn ended.

[@arunnaik3375]

But that does not fit into the "West is best" narrative, their "holier than thou" narrative.

[@ericbaillie1098]

The radical Left can not or will not accept the concept of redemption.

[@kforest2745]

statute of Cecil Rhodes yeah anybody buying diamonds today still a slave and how do I know that because anybody caught up in a mere fkn idea is slave to that idea. ‘Oh look at me how beautiful these look’ 🙄 Meanwhile, they say they work hard for their fkn money.

[@neuralwarp]

Thumbs down because of embedded advert.

[@dylanstipke3170]

Akala, British born poet. His lecture at the Oxford Union is worth listening to. Would like to see him on the podcast

[@davidevans916]

That guy is a woke twat

[@anuma6217]

It's called GREAT Britain for a reason!

[@addveg7814]

You claim the move to denounce slavery for “the first time” in human history was in the 1700s by the Brit’s but in fact Islam did that back in the 600s, around 1420 years ago.

[@dungcheeseMORK999]

The Irish won't like this 😂

[@zlam9872]

I think you should review the title of the video since the united kingdom is historically the world’s biggest empire🙃

[@jamesbyrnes716]

And the most disgusting. The blood of natives will never be washed from that horrible flag. Us Irish will never stop reminding you of your history no matter how hard you try to erase it.

[@konberner170]

From wiki: "A handful of emperors and officials throughout Chinese history have made efforts to limit or outlaw slavery. None were successful [in completely abolishing slavery < edit mine]. In 100 BC, the Confucian scholar Dong Zhongshu advised Emperor Wu of Han to limit the amount of land and slaves that people could own. In 9 AD, Wang Mang ordered the nationalization of large estates and their redistribution to farmers. Part of his reform was changing the institution of slavery so that they would become tax payers, since some impoverished farmers sold themselves or their children into slavery. In the 13th century AD, the jurist Ma Duanlin promulgated a policy limiting the number of slaves owned by officials and commoners to 30. In the 14th century, the Hongwu Emperor ordered an end to all slavery, but in practice slavery continued without heed to his commands. In the 18th century, the Yongzheng Emperor made similar attempts to abolish slavery. In 1909, the Qing officially abolished slavery, but due to internal turmoil and its demise, the institution persisted until 1949 when the People's Republic of China was founded.[4]" Note that English laws against slavery also did not work for a long time, because slaves were held, for example, in British Burma until 1926. So whatever attempts by the Brits were tried, they only recently took effective in all land they effectively controlled. Making it illegal only in England wasn't much of an accomplishment in my view, if there was still massive slave trade in colonies by Brits.

[@arcadia6795]

Look up the west africa squadron

[@Stuck_In_The_Middle]

Umm, In AD 9, the Emperor Wang Mang abolished slavery The Qing dynasty (1644-1912 AD) They possessed about two million slaves upon their conquest of China. Like previous dynasties, the Qing rulers soon saw the advantages of phasing out slavery. The Slavery Abolition Act came into effect on 1 August 1834 for British Empire ( including Canada) When it comes to ending slavery, Britain was behind the eight ball. The US as well. After the Civil War and the slaves set 'free', but slavery continued by another name. Incarceration. It provided prisoner labor to private parties, such as plantation owners and corporations. 91% of the prisoners were black, being Leased Out for labour. Outlandish laws were created, such as the infamous Pig Laws, made sure they had enough prisoners. When that cotton needed pickin' so bad the incarcerations went up. Southern US states, like Alabama, in 1883 about 10% of the Alabama state government's total revenue was derived from convict leasing of prisoners under the state's control. This figure increased to nearly 73% of total revenue by 1898. It's frustrating when certain folks and media (like the DailyWire) are always white-washing / cherry picking / tone down the facts of (American) slavery with "what-about-ism" or out-right cock and bull. I don't give a damn shite what race, sex, religion, or political party they belonged to back in the day, or today. It was wrong then, and still wrong now. Misleading title, statements. E, for Effort Thx to Everybody who helps stop slavery, and to those in the past who have stopped

[@adaptivelearner6162]

Okay so, the example of Wang Mang isn't applicable because he didn't abolish slavery he merely let those free slaves he came across in China, that's not the same as creating a law outlawing the practice nationwide and fighting to enforce the legislature like the British did. As Dr. Biggar explains. Furthermore, I don't know if what you say about African-American men being imprisoned and forced to engage in field labor again is true but, what I do know is this (at that time it wouldn't surprise me) but that still wouldn't be the same as slavery it would be state-sanctioned and most likely unfairly portioned indentured servitude but, yeah if that is true then that's evil you'll get no disagreement from me.

[@Stuck_In_The_Middle]

@@adaptivelearner6162 Agreed that Wang Mang isn't applicable, being no law created. but shows negative views of slavery way back in the day, and people were set free. As for the African-American men, just search " Slavery, by Another Name ". Agreed that it was not the same as slavery, it was worse.

[@arunnaik3375]

The British Empire bore semblance to a pirate ship, voyaging the world's vast oceans, seizing and despoiling all that lay in their course. Yet, their coveted plunder did not comprise gilded chests of riches; it encompassed a fragrant treasury of spices, the intoxicating allure of tea, and the radiant splendor of diamonds. Their maritime escapades, distinct from those of the corsairs of today, did not entail the companionship of parrots and primates but instead resulted in the repatriation of porcelain teacups and implements of cricket. In that era, the English harbored a distinct perspective on civilization. To their view, the essence of civility was synonymous with the license to requisition at will, from whomever and whatever they so desired. Nonetheless, the English have undergone a transformation since those times. Rather than indulging in rapine and pillage, they now incline towards the acquisition of goods at equitable prices. This alteration finds its expression particularly when they frequent the emporium of Waitrose.

[@davewolfy2906]

Dire dirge.

[@dustinpribble1546]

Slavery actually has positive notions too.... research "kinsmen redeemer" as a concept and the Torah surrounding Slavery within the Hebrew nations

[@Joefest99]

America is as the first to pass laws banning trade and the 4th to ban ownership.

[@johnhopkinson4054]

The British were not remotely evil sure they did some unscrupulous acts like any country built on conquest and maybe went too far but what they gave to the world far exceeded any negative slants thrown their way.. Let's not forget they were invaded and conquered on multiple occasions but did they cry or whine about it, no. They learned how to defend their borders united the 5 major counties became a Kingdom and stretched out their sphere of influence which they had to do because they were right on the doorstep of several countries who were building their own empires. If they had not learned to become stronger and had the commitment for exploration and Empire they would have become Europe's whipping boy, essentially an island for every country to come and take the piss.

[@arunnaik3375]

Your attempt to whitewash British colonialism as mere "unscrupulous acts" reflects an alarming ignorance of history and an insidious dismissal of the suffering inflicted upon millions. The British Empire was built on the backs of enslaved Africans, the exploitation of colonized peoples, and the ruthless suppression of any resistance. Let's break down your argument. First, the notion that the British were not "remotely evil" is laughable. The British Empire's legacy includes the genocide of indigenous peoples in Australia, the brutal suppression of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and the famines in India exacerbated by British policies, leading to the deaths of millions. These are not mere "unscrupulous acts" but systemic atrocities driven by greed and a blatant disregard for human life. Your romanticized vision of Britain "learning to defend their borders" and "uniting the 5 major counties" completely overlooks the fact that their so-called "sphere of influence" was maintained through violence, coercion, and oppression. Colonized nations did not benefit from British rule; they were exploited, their resources plundered, and their cultures suppressed. Moreover, your portrayal of Britain as a victim needing to "become stronger" to avoid becoming "Europe's whipping boy" is absurd. This victim narrative conveniently ignores the aggressive expansionism and the imposition of British rule on vast swathes of the world. The British Empire wasn't about self-defense; it was about domination and profit at the expense of others. Let's not forget, too, that when Britain faced invasions, as you put it, the stakes were vastly different. The suffering of the British population during these invasions pales in comparison to the systematic exploitation and dehumanization inflicted on colonized peoples. In sum, your argument grossly misrepresents history and attempts to justify the inexcusable. The British Empire's legacy is one of brutality, exploitation, and suffering. Any attempt to paint it as anything less is a disservice to the countless lives it destroyed.

[@MrTaytersDeep]

We are being invaded now and do nothing to protect our borders.

[@Craicfox161]

@@arunnaik3375yes and they did it because they were more advanced and capable than anyone else.. end of.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@Craicfox161 Oh, of course! The British colonized because they were just so extraordinarily advanced and capable-never mind the brutal exploitation, violence, and sheer disregard for human rights that accompanied their so-called “superiority.” It’s truly remarkable how the atrocities and suffering inflicted on countless peoples across the globe can be so easily brushed aside with such a simplistic and arrogant justification. It’s almost as if the narrative of “advanced and capable” conveniently ignores the moral and ethical failures that were an integral part of colonialism.

[@arunnaik3375]

Example of British Colonial attitude towards Indians experiencing famines in this case Orissa Famine of 1866: Over a million people died in the Orissa alone(roughly one third of the population). The total death toll was between 4 to 5 million. On a flying visit to Orissa in February 1866, Cecil Beadon, the colonial governor of Bengal (which then included Orissa), he pronounced. 'Too late, too rotten' Regulating the skyrocketing grain prices would risk tampering with the natural laws of economics. "If I were to attempt to do this," the governor said, "I should consider myself no better than a dacoit or thief." With that, Mr Beadon deserted his emaciated subjects in Orissa and returned to Kolkata (Calcutta) and busied himself with quashing privately funded relief efforts. In May 1866, it was no longer easy to ignore the mounting catastrophe in Orissa. British administrators in Cuttack found their troops and police officers starving. The remaining inhabitants of Puri were carving out trenches in which to pile the dead. "For miles round you heard their yell for food," commented one observer. As more chilling accounts trickled into Calcutta and London, Mr Beadon made a belated attempt to import rice into Orissa. It was, with cruel irony, hindered by an overabundant monsoon and flooding. Relief was too little, too late, too rotten. Orissans paid with their lives for bureaucratic foot-dragging. (source: BBC, wikipedia)

[@davewolfy2906]

Desperate, again.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@davewolfy2906 Devastating reply, puddinghead

[@davewolfy2906]

@@arunnaik3375 there you go. Your IQ and morals for all to see.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@davewolfy2906 Much higher and better than yours.

[@mazimazu8122]

This isn’t necessarily true

[@islandmarketer]

oh, you know more than these two do, do you?

[@KopperNeoman]

"My Ebonics Black Herstory professor told me that the Redcoats were evil for taking her ancestor's slave trade awa... wait, no, I'm supposed to say that part quietly. Shit."

[@jamesbyrnes716]

​@Gyrate explain that to an Irishman

[@kforest2745]

3:12 “and that’s the logic that somehow they’re gonna liberate themselves by tearing down the statues” OK and the logic behind PUTTING UP the statues IN THE FIRST PLACE? 🙄 Fkn unreal. You don’t have a logical fkn argument. The FACT is taking down the very thing that merely tries to force/impress itself upon the mind is highly intelligent.

[@kshitijghormade584]

Nothing the British Empire did was humane, if you want to know about the atrocities the British committed in India. Read about the Bengal famine which was artificially created by Churchill and killed more Indians by starvation than Hitler killed Jews. Jallianwala Bagh massacre where they opened fire on a group of men women and children who gathered for a festival. Kala Pani was a jail in Andaman and Nicobar islands which was used to keep convicted as well as under trial political prisoners, which was even worse than hell . This is just a small glimpse of the atrocities the Britishers did. There is slavery and then there are things even worse than slavery and the Britishers commited both.

[@arcadia6795]

Haters got to hate. Nothing humane? Where did modern medicine, sanitation and modern ideas of democracy and personal freedom originate. This is not to take away from atrocities committed but to put some context. The empire lasted 300years and covered 1/4 of the world's surface. You think there are no bad things happening today?

[@arunnaik3375]

@@arcadia6795 Medicine, sanitation, democracy (more precisely republics) and personal freedom were present in India in 600 BCE . Republics were divided into the following three categories:. a. Democracies or pure Gana, wherein the total adult-population participated in the administration; b. Aristocracies or pure Kula, wherein only some selected families participated in the administration; and c. Mixed aristocracies and democracies or a mixure of Kula and Gana, wherein the administration was the mixture of the two. The earliest evidence of urban sanitation was seen in Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, and the recently discovered Rakhigarhi. This urban plan included the world's first urban sanitation systems. Within the city, individual homes or groups of homes obtained water from wells. Several courtyard houses had both a washing platform and a dedicated toilet/waste disposal hole. The toilet holes would be flushed by emptying a jar of water, drawn from the house's central well, through a clay brick pipe, and into a shared brick drain, that would feed into an adjacent soak pit (cesspit). The soak pits would be periodically emptied of their solid matter, possibly to be used as fertilizer. Most houses also had private wells. City walls functioned as a barrier against floods. In certain states, the local assemblies enjoyed wide autonomy to look after their respective local administrations and the matters concerning the entire state were decided by all the elected representatives of the local assemblies; in certain others, the powers to govern the entire state were handed over to an elected central assembly and executive. In each state the members of the assembly had the freedom to frame laws and the executives were elected directly or indirectly by a large number of the populace. In all these states, the people who had the right to rule according to settled laws of the state used to assemble at an assembly-hall called the Santhagara, discussed all important matters concerning the state, decided on issues by a majority vote, either by open or secret ballot, if there was no unanimity of opinion and elected the members of the executive. Medicine, was used in many ancient civilizations, including India ( classified as ayurveda). Ayurveda is still practiced in India, and people from all over the world (including British Royalty) come here for treatment. The first evidence of road development in the Indian subcontinent can be traced back to approximately around 2800 BC in the ancient cities of Harrapa and Mohenjodaro of the Indus Valley civilization. Ruling emperors and monarchs of ancient and medieval India continued to construct roads to connect the cities. The existing Grand Trunk Road was re-built by the Mauryan Empire, and further rebuilt by subsequent entities such as the Sur Empire, the Mughal Empire and the British Empire. Chandragupta constructed a 2,400 Km long road from Pataliputra (modern Patna) to Takshashila (now in Pakistan) (300-500 AD ). In the 5th century AD, The emperor Ashoka has improved the quality of the roads in India for the travelers, in his ruling period. Streets and their planning form one of the most important canons of town-planning and Indian ancient architectswere wide awake to this vital principle. Roads had a threefold function: they are high ways for traffic; secondly they demarcate the plots for buildings and constitute a vital limb in the site-planning and thirdly they have sanitary value, providing arteries of free ventilation. Though as per the details of some of the Śilpa-texts it seems that the roads were not so spacious as we have today but some of the ancient works have compensated in regard to adjusting the width of streets to the volume of traffic. Thus we read in the Devī Purāṇa-ch. 72.78-9-“The royal street or high way should be made as wide as ten dhanuṣ i.e. forty cubits, so that men, horses, elephants, and vehicles can have free movement without interference and congestion.” Śukrācārya, prohibits construction of small lanes such as ‘vīthīs’ (small lanes) and ‘padyās’ (foot-ways) in the metropolis or large cities. In Kauṭilya’s Artha-śāstra (Book II ch. IV) we find mention of roads for chariots, roads for cattle, roads for elephants and roads for minor quadrupeds as well as for men, which tradition is also fully followed in the Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇuparva ch. 38-“Vehicular streets (rathyā), avenues (vīthī) and men’s roads (nṛṇām mārgāḥ) were constructed separately in the city.” Further in the Devī and Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇas, the deśa-mārga [mārgāḥ] or diśā-mārga i.e. country roads are stated to be as wide as 30 dhanuṣ, Grāma-mārgas 20 dhanuṣ and Sīmā-mārgas only 10 dhanus which clearly shows the grasp of the several roads of towns conforming to the different traffic circulations.

[@arcadia6795]

@@arunnaik3375 using wiki, Iook up list of British discoveries and inventions. You will note there is a list within the list of each century dating back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and leading to the modern age. Now do the same for Indian discoveries and inventions. It could of been any nation. If you are truly impartial, explain world average life expectancy, infant mortality and education rates before the empire Vs after the empire. There is a clear correlation and you can even see each invention or discovery which led to it. Penicillin, the steam engine even computers and the world wide web. This is not to say the British are better people or worse people, it was a weird set of circumstances that caused this to happen such as being an island and needing to compete with powerful neighbours. It could have been any nation, but never in human civilization had anything like this been seen before at such pace and on such scale. I am glad we live in these enlightened times, history is full of horrors but these enlightened times didn't just magic themselves into existence.

[@arunnaik3375]

@@arcadia6795 The infinite series of calculus for trigonometric functions (rediscovered by Gregory, Taylor, and Maclaurin in the late 17th century) were described in India, by mathematicians of the Kerala school, remarkably some two centuries earlier. Some scholars have recently suggested that knowledge of these results might have been transmitted to Europe through the trade route from Kerala by traders and Jesuit missionaries. Kerala was in continuous contact with China and Arabia, and, from around 1500, with Europe. The existence of communication routes and a suitable chronology certainly make such a transmission a possibility. Both Arab and Indian scholars made discoveries before the 17th century that are now considered a part of calculus. However, they did not, as Newton and Leibniz did, "combine many differing ideas under the two unifying themes of the derivative and the integral, show the connection between the two, and turn calculus into the great problem-solving tool we have today." The intellectual careers of both Newton and Leibniz are well-documented and there is no indication of their work not being their own;[67] however, it is not known with certainty whether the immediate predecessors of Newton and Leibniz, "including, in particular, Fermat and Roberval, learned of some of the ideas of the Islamic and Indian mathematicians through sources we are not now aware." Ancient India had universities, health services and schools. Lookup en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_institutions_of_learning_in_the_Indian_subcontinent These were systematically destroyed by the Brits. As per Will Durant, an American, who visited India during the 1930s, mentions that the total budget of education in India, was half of the New York state's budget. As Will Durant points out, ‘When the British came, there was, throughout India, a system of communal schools, managed by the village communities. The agents of the East India Company destroyed these village communities, and took no steps to replace the schools; even today [1930]… they stand at only 66 per cent of their number a hundred years ago. There are now in India 730,000 villages, and only 162,015 primary schools. Only 7 per cent of the boys and 1 per cent of the girls receive schooling, i.e. 4 per cent of the whole. Such schools as the Government has established are not free, but exact a tuition fee which…looms large to a family always hovering on the edge of starvation.’ Britain’s education policy, in other words, had very little to commend itself. It supplanted and undermined an extensive Indian tradition: traditional methods of guru-shishya parampara (in which students lived with their teachers and imbibed an entire way of thinking) had thrived in India, as did the many monasteries which went on to become important centres of education, receiving students from distant lands, notably as far from our shores as China and Turkey. The Pala period [between the eighth and the twelfth century CE], in particular, saw several monasteries emerge in what is now modern Bengal and Bihar, five of which-Vikramashila, Nalanda, Somapura Mahavihara, Odantapuri, and Jaggadala-were premier educational institutions which created a coordinated network amongst themselves under Indian rulers. Read Inglorious empire by Shashi Tharoor. Rape of a continent by Will Durant. www.britannica.com/science/history-of-medicine/Traditional-medicine-and-surgery-in-Asia journal.chestnet.org/article/S0096-0217(16)32598-5/fulltext onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01294.x www.intechopen.com/chapters/73290

[@arunnaik3375]

@@arcadia6795 British did give India the English language, the benefits of which persist to this day. Or did they? The English language was not a deliberate gift to India, but again an instrument of colonialism, imparted to Indians only to facilitate the tasks of the English. In his notorious 1835 Minute on Education, Lord Macaulay articulated the classic reason for teaching English, but only to a small minority of Indians: ‘We must do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indians in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.’ The language was taught to a few to serve as intermediaries between the rulers and the ruled. That Indians seized the English language and turned it into an instrument for our own liberation-using it to express nationalist sentiments against the British, as R. C. Dutt, Dinshaw Wacha and Dadabhai Naoroji did in the late nineteenth century and Jawaharlal Nehru in the twentieth -was to their credit, not by British design.

[@neilmoran9988]

All spoken in English.Never forget how savage the English were to the Irish.

[@jamesbyrnes716]

He's a prod, he's ignoring it

[@arcadia6795]

It's in the past. We now have self determination. Be progressive.

[@neilmoran9988]

@@arcadia6795 Jordan is speaking mostly of the past.

[@arunnaik3375]

They were savage to everyone, wherever they went. Except for cannibalism, they committed almost every atrocity you could think of. Churchill was almost as bad as Hitler and Stalin.

[@danielw5850]

Never forget that the ROI is a forward-looking country that acknowledges history, but is not trapped by it; and unlike so many, has no desire to rattle a tin cup.

[@dannysullivan3951]

Strawman witlessness

[@bcbbarnes]

Love you and respect you dr. Peterson. You have helped me so much in my life. However, I just dropped in to respond to the title then leave. "Nope! Not going to happen no way. To think that the British fight for the freedom and individualism of anyone, purely altruistically, is simply ridiculous. Whether it was knowledge of the change in societies with industrialism, market capture due to economics globally, or just to spite the colonies lost. There are plenty of reasons why even rejecting my premis I'm not going to bring myself to thank them for civil or human rights.