How many deaths do you think the British Empire is responsible for?

zoukka · Jul 31, 2018

TwinBahamut said:
Scientific and technological advancements spread, often quite rapidly, and help everyone. History generally doesn't play out like a vidrogame with tech trees. Certainly, Britain was the home to a lot of scientific advancement (in no small part due to colonial funding), but pretty much every country that could rapidly adopted those advancements. As such, it isn't a good explaination for why Britain's relative position as compared to other countries rose so much.

Britain had science and scientific way of thinking. The competing empires did not. They did not rapidly pursue new knowledge through scientific research. This is why Britain was so overpowered during the exploration of the new world and in the following conquests.

VeePs · Jul 31, 2018

SkyOdin said:
Famine in India during the period of British rule killed 60 million people over the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Individually, several of those famines cut the population of some areas nearly in half. Not all of that number occurred in what was British territory at the time, but a majority did. In comparison, casualties from famine in India dropped off dramatically once India became independent, despite the same underlying conditions of unreliable weather being present.

They also hurried out of India and the partition of India was ultimately done poorly. It led to other events down the line, some of which are still happening and can be felt today in that region.

brainchild · Jul 31, 2018

TwinBahamut said:
Slavery existed, but permanent multi-generational slavery of Africans based on an ideology of racial inferiority was largely a British creation. Slavery as it existed in other parts of the world or in ancient societies was often quite different in form.

Truth. I wish more people understood this.

TwinBahamut · Jul 31, 2018

zoukka said:
Britain had science and scientific way of thinking. The competing empires did not. They did not rapidly pursue new knowledge through scientific research. This is why Britain was so overpowered during the exploration of the new world and in the following conquests.

...Where do I even start.

Britain never even did that well in carving out territory in the Americas. Spain, France, Portugal, and others conquered just as much, if not more. What is more, much of Britain's conquests began long before its scientific achievements. The Virginia colony was founded 80 years before Newton published his Principia.

The truth is that the idea that European empires triumphed through scientific, intellectual, and cultural superiority is mostly a myth. It is, in fact, probably the founding myth of white supremacism. To earnestly argue it makes you sound like a typical white supremacist.

Europe conquered the Americas because the native peoples of the Americas were devastated by disease. Apocalyptic, society-destroying levels of disease. They simply were not in a position to effectively fight back.

Europe conquered other lands through more traditional methods. Certainly not via technological superiority. If nothing else, 17th to 18th century India was more developed and industrial than pretty much any other country.

sapien85 · Jul 31, 2018

This is the Revisionist History episode about the Indian famine during World War II. Malcolm Gladwell says Churchill and his closest friend Lindemann or Lord Cherwell (and paymaster for the war) caused the famine.

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/15-the-prime-minister-and-the-prof

This is a book on the subject that he read before the podcast:

Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II by Madhursee Mukerjee.

The author claims the British shipped wheat from Australia to Britain, passing by India (even docking in Mumbai to refuel) and not giving them any. Also claims that the British had huge stockpiles of food by the end of the war and that the allies had a surplus of available shipping by the height of the famine. Says the US suspected Britain of stockpiling wheat to sell after the war in Europe. Even says Canada and the US offer to send food to India and the British government refuses it, says it's not needed.

This is a quote of Cherwell: "In my view, the Indians have got themselves into a mess very largely through their own fault," he writes in the middle of the famine. Their own fault. Then he goes on, "This shortage of food is likely to be endemic in a country where the population is always increased until only bare subsistence is possible."

This is Leopold Amery, the Minister in charge of India in his diary talking about talking with Churchill about the need for food shipments to India:

"Churchill goes on a rant about Indians and India," and Amery tells him, "You sound like Hitler." At another point, he writes of Churchill, "I am by no means sure that whether, on this subject of India, he is really quite sane."

zoukka · Aug 1, 2018

TwinBahamut said:
The truth is that the idea that European empires triumphed through scientific, intellectual, and cultural superiority is mostly a myth. It is, in fact, probably the founding myth of white supremacism. To earnestly argue it makes you sound like a typical white supremacist.

My bad, I meant the european empires in the context of conquest of americas. And I did not mention intellectual nor cultural superiority anywhere, as I said before absolutely nothing made the british or europeans more fit to conquer the world. The will and need to explore the world, (something that nobody initially saw as very profitable investment) fill the maps (first recognizing that they are not complete) and the admittance that they are ignorant of many things is what enabled many of the conquers they did. That didn't make them better people than anyone else, but it did make them more efficient in exploring and conquering.

Zatoichi · Aug 1, 2018

snausages said:
It would be pretty disastrous I think. NI gets a lot of handouts from Westminster that Dublin will not be able to replace.

Even with a hard border situation im not sure I see it really.

Lol, disastrous?

Dublin, especially in conjunction with the inevitable EU fund to support reunification could easily replace the 8 Billion a year handed over to NI. With a unified Island the greater efficiencies in infrastructure of all types would easily benefit NI.

The free state has a vastly superior infrastructure and industry than NI, we are in an unequal union that was forced upon us by the British and we easily do better in an United Ireland.

The British Empire and the English in general (read British Empire see English) have sought over the better part of a millennia to destroy Ireland and its people.

The people in NI will be better off in a United Ireland that is part of the EU, the UK economy is going to tank and those measly handouts from Westminster are the first things to suffer.

Deleted member 3335 · Aug 1, 2018

TwinBahamut said:
...Where do I even start.

Britain never even did that well in carving out territory in the Americas. Spain, France, Portugal, and others conquered just as much, if not more. What is more, much of Britain's conquests began long before its scientific achievements. The Virginia colony was founded 80 years before Newton published his Principia.

The truth is that the idea that European empires triumphed through scientific, intellectual, and cultural superiority is mostly a myth. It is, in fact, probably the founding myth of white supremacism. To earnestly argue it makes you sound like a typical white supremacist.

Europe conquered the Americas because the native peoples of the Americas were devastated by disease. Apocalyptic, society-destroying levels of disease. They simply were not in a position to effectively fight back.

Europe conquered other lands through more traditional methods. Certainly not via technological superiority. If nothing else, 17th to 18th century India was more developed and industrial than pretty much any other country.

Sorry this is fantasy

MrLuchador · Aug 1, 2018

Far too many and it's not something educated people are proud of, we have debates in school now about if the British Empire is something to be proud of or not. It's interesting hearing the opinions of teenagers on this.

Deleted member 31133 · Aug 1, 2018

Millions upon millions.

It's not just civilian deaths. It's also the deaths of people fighting for and against the Empire. It's a hard number of pinpoint.

I don't think it's close to being the highest death toll in history.

The estimated death toll of the Mongol Empire for example was between 40 and 70 million deaths. I don't think the death toll of the British Empire is that high.

X1 Two · Aug 1, 2018

But god saves the queen. So they can't be that bad.

Deleted member 7051 · Aug 1, 2018

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:
I realize that it's an impossible question to answer, but is the British Empire low-key just as bad as any of the other genocidal regimes that have existed in history? What sets them apart?

It's not that impossible to answer - empires are built on the blood of the people and the ruins of the countries they conquer. Whether it's the Mongol, Roman, Spanish or British Empire, they conquered large amounts of the world through unspeakable acts of violence and cruelty.

There's no such thing as a benevolent empire and ours was no different. It was just the last.

RPTGB · Aug 1, 2018

It's the nature of the beast, empires are built on conflict.
Britain is certainly guilty of thousand, millions, billions of needless deaths but to use statistics such as that for some sort of "Most Murderous Empire" pissing contest is in somewhat bad taste?
Reading through this thread there seems to be an undercurrent of ignoring the fact that the underclasses in Britain also suffered during those times, but I guess that doesn't quite fit some of the narrative I am reading in here .
(Electric kettle using white Brit here)

Deleted member 5167 · Aug 1, 2018

TwinBahamut said:
North American slavery... began as a British institution meant to create an exploitable labor force for plantation farming in British colonies.

Timbuktu said:
Wasn't it the Portuguese that first did the Atlantic slave trade?

TwinBahamut said:
I did say "largely," not "entirely."

lol.

TwinBahamut said:
The trans-Atlantic slave trade existed as a major component of the British Empire's wealth for over a century, and was a big part in jumpstarting the Empire. The slave trade only ended after the Revolutionary War and slave revolts in the Caribbean brought an end to British rule over the areas where slave plantations were economically viable. It was the ratification of the US Constitution that ended the trade into the former 13 Colonies.

Even then, Britain profited from American slavery and happily bought cotton from slave owners all the way until it was abolished. In fact, a minor but non-trivial cause for the secession of the South and ensuing American Civil War was that the slave states honestly believed that, due to their economic ties, Britain would support them in a war against the Union.

Double lol.
You do actually know what the US revolution was about, yes? The thing that the US wanted so much that they rebelled against Britain to keep, because they had not had a vote in its abolition?
Because you are phrasing this as though slavery was ended because of American independence.

Which is about as revisionist history as you can get.

Cocaloch · Aug 1, 2018

JonnyDBrit said:
That's one of the trickiest aspects of studying history really. The way fiction treats the butterfly effect may be bollocks, but there is generally a long sequence of A causing B causing C until you get all the way to Z.

Generally the implicit presumption is some degree of agency in the result. So the Caesars can't be readily for the atrocities of the same British empire because they wouldn't even conceive of such a thing, nevermind realising its foundations would eventually go back to claims derived from Roman imperialism. By contrast, every grouping of contesting ethnic groups within our former colonies that has lead to violence, war, and arguably even attempted genocide was very deliberately designed by the people who made said colonies. Sure, the British might not have planned for a Nigerian civil war, but the framework is very much because of us - and was, because of colonialism, for us - and therefore blame is still somewhat reasonable in that regard.

But this isn't really tricky. The actual answer is that history is about identifying causal relationships, not assigning arbitrary blame to a generalized concept and then essentializing that blame. That's something laymen like to do because people like moral claims and it seems like an interesting question, but it's a fundamentally bad approach, which is then generally made worse by frequent use of very questionable claims about the historical matter of fact to support philosophically misguided interpretive assertions. See this thread and the very large numbers of very uh interesting assertions.

brainchild said:
Truth. I wish more people understood this.

In a thread full of incorrect assertions this is probably the worst. Slavary as practiced in the United States was an Iberian creation.

CoolestSpot · Aug 1, 2018

How many has Bond killed?

Shoot · Aug 1, 2018

There's an interesting Twitter account that covers this topic.

Deleted member 5167 · Aug 1, 2018

Camel said:
There's an interesting Twitter account that covers this topic.

Interesting is a word for it.

Deleted member 8463 · Aug 1, 2018

Where I live in the north has a pretty grim history - and there's a shit tonne of streets named after slavers. Lovely.

just_myles · Aug 1, 2018

Infernostew said:
Another World Cup thread?

Jk

Probably a lot just like tons of other nations and empires.

I'm not keeping tally. I'm sure it is a lot. The people who emigrated to what is now America sure did a whole lot.

brainchild · Aug 1, 2018

Cocaloch said:
In a thread full of incorrect assertions this is probably the worst. Slavary as practiced in the United States was an Iberian creation.

I am not talking about who was the first to use African slaves en masse, and even if I were, it wouldn't the the Iberians (Arabs used them long before that).

I'm talking about chattel slavery based on the ideology of racial superiority/inferiority, due to the influence of enlightenment reasoning. Race was not always based on physical characteristics but rather kinships or group affiliations (Iberians were not even considered white during that time), and slavery was not always based on race. When race evolved as a social construct to delineate physical characteristics during the age of enlightenment, chattel slavery evolved as well to focus on these newly defined races, and eventually institutionalizing slavery through heredity of African people.

There is no sole contributor here, but considering that the British played significant roles in the enlightenment of race, the colonization of North America, and chattel slavery of Africans, I think we can safely say that the invention of slavery as practiced in the US can be traced back to the British.

Also, here's a very educational video on the origins of race in the US, and why the slavery that took place here was pretty unique compared to the slavery that came before it

JonnyDBrit · Aug 1, 2018

brainchild said:
I am not talking about who was the first to use African slaves en masse, and even if I were, it wouldn't the the Iberians (Arabs used them long before that).

I'm talking about chattel slavery based on the ideology of racial superiority/inferiority, due to the influence of enlightenment reasoning. Race was not always based on physical characteristics but rather kinships or group affiliations (Iberians were not even considered white during that time), and slavery was not always based on race. When race evolved as a social construct to delineate physical characteristics during the age of enlightenment, chattel slavery evolved as well to focus on these newly defined races, and eventually institutionalizing slavery through heredity of African people.

There is no sole contributor here, but considering that the British played significant roles in the enlightenment of race, the colonization of North America, and chattel slavery of Africans, I think we can safely say that the invention of slavery as practiced in the US can be traced back to the British.

Also, here's a very educational video on the origins of race in the US, and why the slavery that took place here was pretty unique compared to the slavery that came before it

I think their point is that they would still attribute such primarily to Portuguese and Spanish sources as a root cause than the British, given how they - particularly the Portuguese - were the primary drivers of the transatlantic trade for the earlier centuries (especially Portugal). Britain's approach to slavery was in turn derived from this. Spain was somewhat rather concerned with the notion of racial distinction and 'purity' in particular, to the point they give us the modern word caste, through casta, which was how they tried to classify things. They even had charts to try and explain the various shades of the Spanish colonial population to people.

brainchild · Aug 1, 2018

JonnyDBrit said:
I think their point is that they would still attribute such primarily to Portuguese and Spanish sources as a root cause than the British, given how they - particularly the Portuguese - were the primary drivers of the transatlantic trade for the earlier centuries (especially Portugal). Britain's approach to slavery was in turn derived from this. Spain was somewhat rather concerned with the notion of racial distinction and 'purity' in particular, to the point they give us the modern word caste, through casta, which was how they tried to classify things. They even had charts to try and explain the various shades of the Spanish colonial population to people.

The transatlantic slave trade was a larger system though; one of economy and infrastructure. How slavery was practiced within that system varied from region to region. If we're taking that kind of macroscopic view to slavery, where do we draw the line and why? If we broaden the definition too much, we aren't going to be able to attribute it to anyone, as slavery has existed since prehistoric times.

JonnyDBrit · Aug 1, 2018

brainchild said:
The transatlantic slave trade was a larger system though; one of economy and infrastructure. How slavery was practiced within that system varied from region to region. If we're taking that kind of macroscopic view to slavery, where do we draw the line and why? If we broaden the definition too much, you aren't going to be able to attribute it to anyone, as slavery has existed since prehistoric times.

Right, but we're talking the development of chattel slavery, which is itself a 'larger system' not confined just to the US. Portugal and Spain were very much a part of its development because they too used burgeoning enlightenment ideology, and a changing concept of 'race', to rationalise its practise and code people's inherent position in society based on such. Britain's role was still a shitty one, but it doesn't have have to be the absolute progenitor of such in order to hold such a role. Really, it's like they took up the baton in the rally for The Absolute Worst.

Cocaloch · Aug 1, 2018

brainchild said:
.

I didn't talk about using African slaves in general, I specified the kind of slavery used in the US normally called Atlantic slavery. I am unaware of a single historian who claims that British North American slavery/slavery in the states should not be understood as part of Atlantic slavery, nor one that claims that Portugal and Spain were not the origins of it, or even one who claims race is a purely Enlightenment construct. Obviously positivism that came from the Enlightenment was influential in the race science of the 19th century, but ironically the British Enlightenment is on the whole less positivistic than its continental counterparts.

brainchild said:
The transatlantic slave trade was a larger system though; one of economy and infrastructure. How slavery was practiced within that system varied from region to region. If we're taking that kind of macroscopic view to slavery, where do we draw the line and why? If we broaden the definition too much, we aren't going to be able to attribute it to anyone, as slavery has existed since prehistoric times.

I mean this problem exists for every topic under the sun. Defining things is both important and inevitably arbitrary. Historians tackle this problem the same way as anyone else, which is to say they try to give arguments suggesting their interpretation makes sense and does something. To that end even scholars, usually of Latin America, who are in a hurry to argue for the uniqueness of their object of study still awknowldge slavery throughout the Americas as a meaningful category.

MikeMyers · Aug 1, 2018

Betty said:
People don't hold Germany, Japan and Russia in low regard today though, unless you mean they are more aware of the past atrocities in those countries over Britian, which is true and something I can't explain either.

History is written by its winners and Anglo media is pretty dominant worldwide.

AegonSnake · Aug 1, 2018

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:
I

While Britain was helping to fight the Germans, Churchill said this: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."

and yet he had no problem enlisting 3 million indian men to fight his wars.

Rangerx · Aug 1, 2018

Millions upon millions. At least a couple of million in my own country Ireland.

Deleted member 5167 · Aug 1, 2018

JonnyDBrit said:
Spain was somewhat rather concerned with the notion of racial distinction and 'purity' in particular, to the point they give us the modern word caste, through casta, which was how they tried to classify things. They even had charts to try and explain the various shades of the Spanish colonial population to people.

In fact, the funding for Columbus voyage east was as a direct result of their celebration of the expulsion of the moriscos.

i hate cheaters · Aug 1, 2018

probably more than 200 million, but they share the blame with others for many of those

and we're still counting. half the current conflicts in the world are britain's fault either directly or indirectly

brainchild · Aug 1, 2018

JonnyDBrit said:
Right, but we're talking the development of chattel slavery, which is itself a 'larger system' not confined just to the US. Portugal and Spain were very much a part of its development because they too used burgeoning enlightenment ideology, and a changing concept of 'race', to rationalise its practise and code people's inherent position in society based on such. Britain's role was still a shitty one, but it doesn't have have to be the absolute progenitor of such in order to hold such a role. Really, it's like they took up the baton in the rally for The Absolute Worst.

But I'm not referring to chattel slavery as a general concept, but rather the legislated form -- where slaves were personal property, slavery was hereditary based on enlightenment reasoning, and slavery wasn't just indentured servitude -- that had emerged and was sanctioned by North American colonial law. Looking at the dates of its inception (early 1600s) I cannot find this specific type of situation being predated in written records anywhere else (the transatlantic slave trade predates it, but is not the same thing at all), and even the first legal sanction is something that is still under debate by historians. By all means, if you can demonstrate evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so.

I'm not saying that the British are the progenitors of slavery, but the form that existed in North America is very specifically legislated gubernatorially, and I cannot recall any evidence that suggests that this specific form of institutionalized slavery was preceded by anywhere else in the world.

Cocaloch said:
I didn't talk about using African slaves in general, I specified the kind of slavery used in the US normally called Atlantic slavery. I am unaware of a single historian who claims that British North American slavery/slavery in the states should not be understood as part of Atlantic slavery, nor one that claims that Portugal and Spain were not the origins of it, or even one who claims race is a purely Enlightenment construct. Obviously positivism that came from the Enlightenment was influential in the race science of the 19th century, but ironically the British Enlightenment is on the whole less positivistic than its continental counterparts.

If you think that my argument is that North American slavery wasn't a part of the transatlantic slave trade, then you are mistaken. I'm simply saying that I'm working from a much more narrow definition, one that exists within the scope of the transatlantic slave trade. I am not arguing that the British started the transatlantic slave trade, I'm saying that they carved out their own form of slavery from within it.

Cocaloch said:
I mean this problem exists for every topic under the sun. Defining things is both important and inevitably arbitrary. Historians tackle this problem the same way as anyone else, which is to say they try to give arguments suggesting their interpretation makes sense and does something. To that end even

This is true, which is why I was pretty clear on laying out the context of slavery to which I attribute the British colonies in North America.

JonnyDBrit · Aug 1, 2018

brainchild said:
But I'm not referring to chattel slavery as a general concept, but rather the legislated form -- where slaves were personal property, slavery was hereditary based on enlightenment reasoning, and slavery wasn't just indentured servitude -- that had emerged and was sanctioned by North American colonial law. Looking at the dates of its inception (early 1600s) I cannot find this specific type of situation being predated in written records anywhere else (the transatlantic slave trade predates it, but is not the same thing at all), and even the first legal sanction is something that is still under debate by historians. By all means, if you can demonstrate evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so.

I'm not saying that the British are the progenitors of slavery, but the form that existed in North America is very specifically legislated gubernatorially, and I cannot recall any evidence that suggests that this specific form of institutionalized slavery was preceded by anywhere else in the world.

Ah, this distinction is where I'm getting confused, I think. While the elements you list are generally attributed to be present in Latin American colonies, on this I am admittedly not as certain if it was codified by strict legislation as opposed to general habit and practise. So for this I will concede.

Nivash · Aug 1, 2018

brainchild said:
But I'm not referring to chattel slavery as a general concept, but rather the legislated form -- where slaves were personal property, slavery was hereditary based on enlightenment reasoning, and slavery wasn't just indentured servitude -- that had emerged and was sanctioned by North American colonial law. Looking at the dates of its inception (early 1600s) I cannot find this specific type of situation being predated in written records anywhere else (the transatlantic slave trade predates it, but is not the same thing at all), and even the first legal sanction is something that is still under debate by historians. By all means, if you can demonstrate evidence to the contrary, feel free to do so.

If you go by the bolded definition and exclude the enlightenment basis, everything about fits to plenty of slave societies. Ancient Greece included.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece

In Athens, slaves were the property of their masters and had no legal identity. Slavery was inherited, although slave owners tried to avoid this because it was considered more complicated to breed slaves than to simply replace them as needed. In cases where slaves did have children they belonged to the slave owner, and the owner could split families on a whim. Most slaves were treated better than the African slaves in America by a massive degree, but it mostly rose to the degree that modern people treat pets or livestock. Any laws protecting slaves did so only indirectly by rather deciding that some types of treatment wasn't fit in Greek society as a matter of its character, not because the slaves really mattered. Slaves were seen as domestic animals and treated as such. Good behaviour was rewarded, but bad behaviour was equally punished and flogging was common.

But that's for house slaves. Slaves who worked in mines or were forced into prostitution were treated far, far worse, and probably little better than African slaves in America. There was a third group - public slaves - who lived more independantly, but were still mistreated. Slave catchers were a thing for runaways, and violent retribution from slaves towards their masters is recorded.

There was a clearly racist component too. Greeks generally considered themselves a master race that couldn't be enslaved, while other ethnic groups - like Persians - were seen as naturally suited to slavery because they were "submissive" in nature, and slaves were generally considered inherently intellectually inferior in that they could understand instructions, but not think for themselves. Much like how white slave owners viewed their slaves. Aristotle defends this concept of "natural slavery" in The Republic. He directly compared the usage of slaves to that of tamed animals. This was actually a counter-argument to the Sophists of the time, who correctly recognised that there wasn't any inherent difference between the slaves and their masters.

So apart from the fact that the Greeks treated their slaves better (because they were more of a rarity) the entire concept of slavery is roughly the same as that in America. The greatest difference is that the abundance of slaves brought by the trans-Atlantic slave trade made slaves cheap and disposable, which led to harsher conditions and more abuse. It's actually curious when you think about it and consider that while medieval Europe had serfs, they didn't have slaves. Maybe the Renaissance reintroduced the concept to a degree along with the other aspects of the Classical Era, such as limited democracy.

brainchild · Aug 1, 2018

JonnyDBrit said:
Ah, this distinction is where I'm getting confused, I think. While the elements you list are generally attributed to be present in Latin American colonies, on this I am admittedly not as certain if it was codified by strict legislation as opposed to general habit and practise. So for this I will concede.

To be fair, the lack of mention of legislation in my previous posts was a glaring omission on my part.

I'm aware of similar practices in the Latin America colonies at that time as well, but I cannot find any solid evidence that suggests that it was explicitly legislated as a government system. As for other countries, there was the asiento system agreement between Britain and Spain, but that came afterward (early 1700s) and still wasn't quite the same thing, as that was more of a contractual trade agreement between countries.

brainchild · Aug 1, 2018

Nivash said:
If you go by the bolded definition and exclude the enlightenment basis, everything about fits to plenty of slave societies. Ancient Greece included.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece

In Athens, slaves were the property of their masters and had no legal identity. Slavery was inherited, although slave owners tried to avoid this because it was considered more complicated to breed slaves than to simply replace them as needed. In cases where slaves did have children they belonged to the slave owner, and the owner could split families on a whim. Most slaves were treated better than the African slaves in America by a massive degree, but it mostly rose to the degree that modern people treat pets or livestock. Any laws protecting slaves did so only indirectly by rather deciding that some types of treatment wasn't fit in Greek society as a matter of its character, not because the slaves really mattered. Slaves were seen as domestic animals and treated as such. Good behaviour was rewarded, but bad behaviour was equally punished and flogging was common.

But that's for house slaves. Slaves who worked in mines or were forced into prostitution were treated far, far worse, and probably little better than African slaves in America. There was a third group - public slaves - who lived more independantly, but were still mistreated. Slave catchers were a thing for runaways, and violent retribution from slaves towards their masters is recorded.

There was a clearly racist component too. Greeks generally considered themselves a master race that couldn't be enslaved, while other ethnic groups - like Persians - were seen as naturally suited to slavery because they were "submissive" in nature, and slaves were generally considered inherently intellectually inferior in that they could understand instructions, but not think for themselves. Much like how white slave owners viewed their slaves. Aristotle defends this concept of "natural slavery" in The Republic. He directly compared the usage of slaves to that of tamed animals. This was actually a counter-argument to the Sophists of the time, who correctly recognised that there wasn't any inherent difference between the slaves and their masters.

So apart from the fact that the Greeks treated their slaves better (because they were more of a rarity) the entire concept of slavery is roughly the same as that in America. The greatest difference is that the abundance of slaves brought by the trans-Atlantic slave trade made slaves cheap and disposable, which led to harsher conditions and more abuse. It's actually curious when you think about it and consider that while medieval Europe had serfs, they didn't have slaves. Maybe the Renaissance reintroduced the concept to a degree along with the other aspects of the Classical Era, such as limited democracy.

Removing enlightenment reasoning from the equation changes the definition entirely, as does comparing older societies to more modern societies and developed government systems and institutions. There's a reason that I was so meticulously specific, and it's because all of the components that I mentioned were a confluence of justification for legalizing slavery in North America; they were not just correlating components, they were the explicit foundation of its legalization; the empirical evidence of which has been preserved to this day.

But more importantly, nothing that you mentioned has anything to do with how slavery in North America took shape and who was responsible for it, which is what I've been focusing on.

Nivash · Aug 1, 2018

brainchild said:
Removing enlightenment reasoning from the equation changes the definition entirely, as does comparing older societies to more modern societies and developed government systems and institutions. There's a reason that I was so meticulously specific, and it's because all of the components that I mentioned were a confluence of justification for legalizing slavery in North America; they were not just correlating components, they were the explicit foundation of its legalization; the empirical evidence of which has been preserved to this day.

But more importantly, nothing that you mentioned has anything to do with how slavery in North America took shape and who was responsible for it, which is what I've been focusing on.

Well, you were rather arguing that the legal and racial aspects of chattel slavery were unique, and I think looking at ancient societies - particularly ones that had a huge influence on both Britain and the other European nations - is of value here in showing that it had clear historical analogues. The context changes if the way you define chattel slavery was not really something that originated fully de novo during the Enlightenment Era. It's the difference between Britain being directly guilty of coming up with it, or indirectly by simply administrating an older concept by being in a position to do so. It impacts the previous discussion on whether Iberia or Britain had the most guilt in bringing slavery to America.

Deleted member 19996 · Aug 1, 2018

The correct answer is one less than Nathan Drake.

brainchild · Aug 1, 2018

Nivash said:
Well, you were rather arguing that the legal and racial aspects of chattel slavery were unique, and I think looking at ancient societies - particularly ones that had a huge influence on both Britain and the other European nations - is of value here in showing that it had clear historical analogues. The context changes if the way you define chattel slavery was not really something that originated fully de novo during the Enlightenment Era. It's the difference between Britain being directly guilty of coming up with it, or indirectly by simply administrating an older concept by being in a position to do so. It impacts the previous discussion on whether Iberia or Britain had the most guilt in bringing slavery to America.

To the bolded, it would be more accurate to say that I'm arguing that the manifestation of legalized chattel slavery in North America was uniquely dependent on its time period, during the enlightenment era, where the general concept of race had changed. To suggest that there's an analogue in ancient history where race was largely viewed in the same way is to essentially suggest that there has never actually been a distinction of enlightenment on the concept of race, which we know isn't true.

During the enlightenment era, the destinction of race became one of scientific interest, which in and of itself was already very different from ancient times. Due to the 'legitimacy' of such findings, it became a pillar for establishing objective reasons for legalizing hereditary slavery. This isn't the same distinction made about race in ancient times, nor is there any evidence that I can find of such legislation that explicitly addresses the issue. The situations are not comparable at all, imo.

Erik Twice · Aug 1, 2018

I love all the Anglos in this thread trying to blame Spain for their countries' racism and slavery.

For starters, slavery against American Indians was actually banned by the Spanish crown. Yes, banned. Indians were considered to be free vassals of the crown, not private property and could not be sold nor bought. They were not slaves nor serfs, by law.

Second, it's important to keep in mind that Spain was excluded out of the transatlantic slave trade by virtue of Treaty of Tordesillas. This meant that, while slavery existed in Spain, it never had a large population of African slaves until the end of the colonial period. Keep in mind that the transatlantic slave trade ramped up over time, more slaves were brought in XVIII century than during all other centuries combined.

Third, the systems of forced labour used by Spain, the ecomienda and the later repartimiento were not based on race, but on tribal membership. Unlike other imperial powers, Spain did not replace the hierarchies of the societies they conquered. Rather, they kept them in place and asserted control over them through vassalage, appointments, marriage and alliances. For example, of the most important encomiendas was awarded to Isabel Monctezuma, daughter and heir of Monctezuma II.

These systems, while dating back to antiquity, were of a feudal nature and could be seen as a form of tribute. Spain would entrust (encomendar) a person a specific number of Indians from a given tribe to work for him. The leaders of that tribe would provide them, as well as other tributes asked by the Spanish Crown, such as food, metals or clothing. In return, the person entrusted would be tasked with providing protection, religious education and teaching them the Spanish language.

Fourth, while abuse was common, it was punished by law and subject to Inquisitorial investigation. That includes the death penalty. Indians could not work under these systems for longer than two years, could not work on Sundays, had to be paid, could not do hard work when pregnant or when their kid is younger than three years and were entitled to lodging, food and hygiene of a certain standard. Punishment, both verbal and physical was not allowed under any reason.

Fifth, the crown promoted intermarriage as a way to promote evangelization and unification. Tribes held rights to their land it could not be taken from them.

This is completely unlike slavery in the United States on every single level. It's funny how the US was a British colony, following British laws and British customs and a British approach to slavery and every single other influence but no, it's Spain, who barely ever held any of the territory it sits on, who is to blame.

The only one in this thread which is on clear track is Brainchild, whose explanation of the legal system os slavery is spot on. The rest is whataboutism and nonsense.

brainchild · Aug 1, 2018

Erik Twice said:
I love all the Anglos in this thread trying to blame Spain for their countries' racism and slavery.

For starters, slavery against American Indians was actually banned by the Spanish crown. Yes, banned. Indians were considered to be free vassals of the crown, not private property and could not be sold nor bought. They were not slaves nor serfs, by law.

Second, it's important to keep in mind that Spain was excluded out of the transatlantic slave trade by virtue of Treaty of Tordesillas. This meant that, while slavery existed in Spain, it never had a large population of African slaves until the end of the colonial period. Keep in mind that the transatlantic slave trade ramped up over time, more slaves were brought in XVIII century than during all other centuries combined.

Third, the systems of forced labour used by Spain, the ecomienda and the later repartimiento were not based on race, but on tribal membership. Unlike other imperial powers, Spain did not replace the hierarchies of the societies they conquered. Rather, they kept them in place and asserted control over them through vassalage, appointments, marriage and alliances. For example, of the most important encomiendas was awarded to Isabel Monctezuma, daughter and heir of Monctezuma II.

These systems, while dating back to antiquity, were of a feudal nature and could be seen as a form of tribute. Spain would entrust (encomendar) a person a specific number of Indians from a given tribe to work for him. The leaders of that tribe would provide them, as well as other tributes asked by the Spanish Crown, such as food, metals or clothing. In return, the person entrusted would be tasked with providing protection, religious education and teaching them the Spanish language.

Fourth, while abuse was common, it was punished by law and subject to Inquisitorial investigation. That includes the death penalty. Indians could not work under these systems for longer than two years, could not work on Sundays, had to be paid, could not do hard work when pregnant or when their kid is younger than three years and were entitled to lodging, food and hygiene of a certain standard. Punishment, both verbal and physical was not allowed under any reason.

Fifth, the crown promoted intermarriage as a way to promote evangelization and unification. Tribes held rights to their land it could not be taken from them.

This is completely unlike slavery in the United States on every single level. It's funny how the US was a British colony, following British laws and British customs and a British approach to slavery and every single other influence but no, it's Spain, who barely ever held any of the territory it sits on, who is to blame.

The only one in this thread which is on clear track is Brainchild, whose explanation of the legal system os slavery is spot on. The rest is whataboutism and nonsense.

Much better explanation on the distinction of Spanish influence than I was able to offer. Thanks for your input.

Deleted member 33887 · Aug 2, 2018

sapien85 said:
This is the Revisionist History episode about the Indian famine during World War II. Malcolm Gladwell says Churchill and his closest friend Lindemann or Lord Cherwell (and paymaster for the war) caused the famine.

The author claims the British shipped wheat from Australia to Britain, passing by India (even docking in Mumbai to refuel) and not giving them any. Also claims that the British had huge stockpiles of food by the end of the war and that the allies had a surplus of available shipping by the height of the famine. Says the US suspected Britain of stockpiling wheat to sell after the war in Europe. Even says Canada and the US offer to send food to India and the British government refuses it, says it's not needed.

This is a quote of Cherwell: "In my view, the Indians have got themselves into a mess very largely through their own fault," he writes in the middle of the famine. Their own fault. Then he goes on, "This shortage of food is likely to be endemic in a country where the population is always increased until only bare subsistence is possible."

This is Leopold Amery, the Minister in charge of India in his diary talking about talking with Churchill about the need for food shipments to India:

"Churchill goes on a rant about Indians and India," and Amery tells him, "You sound like Hitler." At another point, he writes of Churchill, "I am by no means sure that whether, on this subject of India, he is really quite sane."

I haven't finished Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II by Madhursee Mukerjee quite yet, but I have skimmed several hundred pages. Churchill does end up looking quite terrible, but it was a British catastrophe, and the levels of ineptitude were manifold. To me the most interesting thing is that the severity of the disaster was largely stoked by British War Office panicking at the capture of Singapore, the Japanese making inroads into Burma, and a Japanese carrier group appearing in the Indian Ocean. Despite Wavell protesting, they started moving and burning rice from the coast of Bengal and the eastern part of it. This pargraph in particular stood out to me:

"When civil servant Asok Mitra arrived in Munshiganji in eastern Bengal in early February 1942, he found less than 10 tons of rice in riverside storehouses that should have held thousands of tons. The police, he was told, had gone around destroying or seizing the stocks. Journalist Sukharanjan Sengupta alleges that thousands of tons of rice stored at three river ports of eastern Bengal were thrown into the water, while a villager told a radio correspondent Nazes Afroz that he saw soldiers setting fire to sacks of rice."

So the British burned or otherwise discarded tons of rice that could have minimized the impact of the typhoon. It seems like the War Office took a very aggressive stance, deeming eastern India indefensible. Churchill was in favor of scorched earth tactics where necessary, but it isn't entirely clear to me who ultimately was responsible for such aggressive scorched earth tactics. To me it seems like the War Office got really got caught up in the moment, because Churchill knew that it would be a major strategic blunder for the Japanese to invade India when they still hadn't eliminated resistance in China. The British's major concern should have been the Japanese navy persisting in the Indian ocean, but even that was probably a stretch given the Japanese fleet's resources.

The rest devolves into Churchill hating Indian nationalists (not surprising), sounding vaguely like Trump ("we're paying for all of India's defense and providing the army," when in truth the British owed the Indians money), and being somewhat obsessive about the quality of the British diet. The guy in charge of leading the relief effort being told to buy up rice at any price (followed by speculators doing the same), and also unleashing each of the Indian provinces to fend for themselves seemed like equally monumental idiocy.

It also seems like Amery censored his own diary to not implicate the British government any more than necessary. The details about burning and dumping rice are wholly absent from his diary. And I suppose that would explain why he can be extremely critical of Churchill in one sentence, and then acknowledge he might have a point a bit later. Something I certainly had not considered.

The book has the line "In the end, it is not so much racism as the imbalance of power in the social Darwinism pyramid that explains why famine could be tolerated in India while bread rationing was regarded as an intolerable deprivation in wartime Britain." I'm fairly depressed after reading that though, because 3 million people died due to some jumpy imperialists who were afraid of the Japanese.

sapien85 · Aug 2, 2018

zer0das said:
I haven't finished Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II by Madhursee Mukerjee quite yet, but I have skimmed several hundred pages. Churchill does end up looking quite terrible, but it was a British catastrophe, and the levels of ineptitude were manifold. To me the most interesting thing is that the severity of the disaster was largely stoked by British War Office panicking at the capture of Singapore, the Japanese making inroads into Burma, and a Japanese carrier group appearing in the Indian Ocean. Despite Wavell protesting, they started moving and burning rice from the coast of Bengal and the eastern part of it. This pargraph in particular stood out to me:

"When civil servant Asok Mitra arrived in Munshiganji in eastern Bengal in early February 1942, he found less than 10 tons of rice in riverside storehouses that should have held thousands of tons. The police, he was told, had gone around destroying or seizing the stocks. Journalist Sukharanjan Sengupta alleges that thousands of tons of rice stored at three river ports of eastern Bengal were thrown into the water, while a villager told a radio correspondent Nazes Afroz that he saw soldiers setting fire to sacks of rice."

So the British burned or otherwise discarded tons of rice that could have minimized the impact of the typhoon. It seems like the War Office took a very aggressive stance, deeming eastern India indefensible. Churchill was in favor of scorched earth tactics where necessary, but it isn't entirely clear to me who ultimately was responsible for such aggressive scorched earth tactics. To me it seems like the War Office got really got caught up in the moment, because Churchill knew that it would be a major strategic blunder for the Japanese to invade India when they still hadn't eliminated resistance in China. The British's major concern should have been the Japanese navy persisting in the Indian ocean, but even that was probably a stretch given the Japanese fleet's resources.

The rest devolves into Churchill hating Indian nationalists (not surprising), sounding vaguely like Trump ("we're paying for all of India's defense and providing the army," when in truth the British owed the Indians money), and being somewhat obsessive about the quality of the British diet. The guy in charge of leading the relief effort being told to buy up rice at any price (followed by speculators doing the same), and also unleashing each of the Indian provinces to fend for themselves seemed like equally monumental idiocy.

It also seems like Amery censored his own diary to not implicate the British government any more than necessary. The details about burning and dumping rice are wholly absent from his diary. And I suppose that would explain why he can be extremely critical of Churchill in one sentence, and then acknowledge he might have a point a bit later. Something I certainly had not considered.

The book has the line "In the end, it is not so much racism as the imbalance of power in the social Darwinism pyramid that explains why famine could be tolerated in India while bread rationing was regarded as an intolerable deprivation in wartime Britain." I'm fairly depressed after reading that though, because 3 million people died due to some jumpy imperialists who were afraid of the Japanese.

I really want to read this book.

How many deaths do you think the British Empire is responsible for?

Game Developer

Prophet of Truth

Independent Developer

Game Developer

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Independent Developer

God and Anime

Independent Developer

God and Anime

User requested account closure

Independent Developer

God and Anime

Independent Developer

Independent Developer

User requested account closure

Independent Developer

Independent Developer

User requested account closure