Aren't some countries unfairly vilified for their slavery/colonial past?

Aug 2012
1,554
#11
Everyone knows about the British Empire, and there are some who says Britain should "pay" for its Empire.
The USA still has issues stemming from slavery, and the South still is poorer than the North (and far West in modern times).
Look at the people villifying these nations and you will see a common thread linking them - namely that those who still carp on about slavery and colonialism are themselves deeply bigoted and conflate any sense of national identity in either America or Britain to their definition of "racism".

Take the average grief-monger, do you really think they'd feel any better about the past if the descendants of the slaves were given reparations? Would they stop talking about it? Would they really stop acting as if it happened to them, personally?
No. Because when they talk about making nations "pay", what they ultimately mean is that they wish the shoe were on the other foot. They don't care about the slavery, just the colour of the people who were enslaved. If it were any other way, why would they care so much that Lincoln made racist remarks? The guy literally got shot in the head for what he believed in and it still isn't enough. That right there tells you all you need to know.
 
Mar 2019
918
Kansas
#12
Look at the people villifying these nations and you will see a common thread linking them - namely that those who still carp on about slavery and colonialism are themselves deeply bigoted and conflate any sense of national identity in either America or Britain to their definition of "racism".
In Australia one of the claimed stumbling blocks to acknowledging issues with our relationships with Aboriginals was the thought it would spark a run of 'compensation claims' Eventually our Prime Minister issued an unreserved apology to the native peoples on behalf of the Australian people. In the subsequent 11 years there have been exactly zero claims presented to the courts.
 
Likes: andyferdinard

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,286
Spain
#13
I think not country have to pay nothing.. but if there are some.. they must be Togo, Benin, Ghana, Dahomey etc etc.. Slaves states sold to everybody mostly British, Portuguese, Spaniards, French and Dutch. And also USA, Brazil are responsable.

Spain and Portugal didn´t begin any slave trade...Slavery comes from Neolitic....
 
Dec 2015
3,505
USA
#14
Everyone knows about the British Empire, and there are some who says Britain should "pay" for its Empire.
The USA still has issues stemming from slavery, and the South still is poorer than the North (and far West in modern times).

But then countries like Spain don't get the same moral judgment. Spain, and Portugal, started European colonialism and the slave trade, and there aren't as big movements or moral outrage at bad past actions.

Why don't anti-racists target them, as much as they do Britain or America? Regarding the slave trade, the UK has done a lot out of the former participants in it to highlight the horrors and effects. This is as much about moral guilt as anything else, but then Portugal transported more slaves, and they were engaged in slave trading practically as soon as Prince Henry's ships reached Senegal or Guinea. They actually went up river on the Senegal, Gambia, etc. and took local Africans for Portuguese slave markets. But again, there isn't the moral outrage against them.
I feel that so called anti racists, or anti bigots as I would put it....are actually proud of those that came before.

In the years 500-1500 otherwise known as the middle ages we can see that non Christians such as Ibn Jubair praised European-Catholic Culture. In the middle ages there was selective cases of intolerance, but we can see that morally good stories of King Arthur and the Knight Swan were admired by those of European history. Even after that time 16th Protestant English figures such as Francis Drake worked with African people in the Cimarron as equals. Drake worked with the Cimarron against the Spanish Empire. And we should also note that prior to Drake, the Spanish Empire employed Christopher Columbus the Italian explorer whom praised the Taino People of the "New World" as the most beautiful people in the world. Sir Francis Drake was during WW2 called upon by Englishmen as a means of inspiration in fighting the Axis powers. As a Catholic even I view Drake as a hero that all the world can look up to. The so called anti racists of today are upset with how the USA had a white enforced slavery for some time(eventually the Civil war solved this at a cost of many Americans), but those same anti racist people of today utterly oppose the modern day slavers of AQ and ISIL. The anti racist crowd admires people like Abraham Lincoln and other figures of American and European history.

In todays world it seems those you bring up are in fact more vocal about the intolerance stemming from modern day middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as African countries such as Sudan.
 

mark87

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,036
Santiago de Chile
#15
While Britain and the US get very much vilified, if this site was in Spanish you would see a lot more anti-Spanish and/or anti-Portuguese sentiment and vilification of their empires.
Britain unfortunately has to carry the burden of being the largest empire of all European empires at the time of decolonization while the United States is currently the premier world superpower and their media invades the rest of the world so millions of non Americans hear all about the countries past sins including slavery.
I don't know about Portugal but Spain and the Spanish very often get blasted for their empire and colonist past by South Americans all the time, especially those of native or non European heritage. In my experience people who complain too much about the colonial past and of certain colonist nations have a chip on their shoulder and skew history to enact a narrative that assuages their own egos and and use this as a justification for underdevelopment and poor living standards.
(In case you are wondering yes we have SJW's in South America and they are every bit as obnoxious as their north american counterparts).
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,877
Slovenia, EU
#16
Everyone knows about the British Empire, and there are some who says Britain should "pay" for its Empire.
The USA still has issues stemming from slavery, and the South still is poorer than the North (and far West in modern times).

But then countries like Spain don't get the same moral judgment. Spain, and Portugal, started European colonialism and the slave trade, and there aren't as big movements or moral outrage at bad past actions.

Why don't anti-racists target them, as much as they do Britain or America? Regarding the slave trade, the UK has done a lot out of the former participants in it to highlight the horrors and effects. This is as much about moral guilt as anything else, but then Portugal transported more slaves, and they were engaged in slave trading practically as soon as Prince Henry's ships reached Senegal or Guinea. They actually went up river on the Senegal, Gambia, etc. and took local Africans for Portuguese slave markets. But again, there isn't the moral outrage against them.
Yes, at least 15-20 states should condemn and demand reparations from Turkey for Ottomans.
 
Likes: dreuxeng
Jun 2013
481
Connecticut
#17
Were't the Dutch big time trans-Atlantic slavers? More than the Spanish?

Also, I've heard that East African slaving by Arabs was just as big as trans-Atlantic. But I've heard that over the eons the slaves got assimilated into the populations of various Arab, Turkish and Persian empires. That didn't happen in the trans-Atlantic side.
Is this true?
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
55
France
#18
The biggest were the Portuguese, by far, far more than the spanish or others, the Spanish preferred to entrust the slave trade to other nations such as Portugal or Great Britain ( Asiento - Wikipedia )

And yes, the Arab slave trade was bigger than the transatlantic slave trade.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,398
Portugal
#19
Were't the Dutch big time trans-Atlantic slavers? More than the Spanish?
Not really, according to today’s estimates Portugal was the first, followed by Britain, France, Spain, Dutch, USA and Denmark:

Estimates (This database project although with some problems is the most complete and global research on the theme. The data reference to the USA prior to its existence it is a odd option, since it would be under Britain).

What is curious to note is that the Spanish trade only really took in the 19th century, it was almost irrelevant until there; we also need to recall that until Rio Muni and Fernando Pó was ceded to the Spanish by the Portuguese in the 18th century, the Spanish didn’t had possessions in the “Black” Africa, so as KurwaGoy said, they bough the slaves mainly to the Portuguese, or to the British after the Spanish Succession War.

Also, I've heard that East African slaving by Arabs was just as big as trans-Atlantic. But I've heard that over the eons the slaves got assimilated into the populations of various Arab, Turkish and Persian empires. That didn't happen in the trans-Atlantic side.
Is this true?
The East African slave trade begun before and ended later but the estimates that I read give a number around the 10 million slaves, so somewhat lower than the Atlantic slave trade. A significant but unknown part of these slaves didn’t had offspring since they were often castrated, and that was rare in the Atlantic slave trade.

Even after that time 16th Protestant English figures such as Francis Drake worked with African people in the Cimarron as equals. Drake worked with the Cimarron against the Spanish Empire. And we should also note that prior to Drake, the Spanish Empire employed Christopher Columbus the Italian explorer whom praised the Taino People of the "New World" as the most beautiful people in the world. Sir Francis Drake was during WW2 called upon by Englishmen as a means of inspiration in fighting the Axis powers. As a Catholic even I view Drake as a hero that all the world can look up to.
Curious mention to two slavers. They did what the men of their time did. They traded people for money. Today that shocks most of us, at the time not that much, it was considered natural under certain circumstances.
 
May 2011
13,856
Navan, Ireland
#20
While Britain and the US get very much vilified, if this site was in Spanish you would see a lot more anti-Spanish and/or anti-Portuguese sentiment and vilification of their empires.
Britain unfortunately has to carry the burden of being the largest empire of all European empires at the time of decolonization while the United States is currently the premier world superpower and their media invades the rest of the world so millions of non Americans hear all about the countries past sins including slavery.
I don't know about Portugal but Spain and the Spanish very often get blasted for their empire and colonist past by South Americans all the time, especially those of native or non European heritage. In my experience people who complain too much about the colonial past and of certain colonist nations have a chip on their shoulder and skew history to enact a narrative that assuages their own egos and and use this as a justification for underdevelopment and poor living standards.
(In case you are wondering yes we have SJW's in South America and they are every bit as obnoxious as their north american counterparts).

I was thinking that-- this is an English language site-- so of course the Empires that get most attention are English speaking 'Empires' If it was Spanish/Portuguese/French site would the attitude be different?

In the UK its not very 'PC' to be anything but negative about Empire, which I personally think its ridiculous you simply can not write off whole centuries as 'murder and slaughter' out of context etc the worlds was and is more complex than that.
 

Similar History Discussions