Black Lives Matter

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

34 minutes ago, FDR said:

It wasn't widespread at all, no matter how many times empty-brained people on TV -- who are all direct or indirect agents of the British intelligence services and paid actors reading from a script and using carefully rehearsed vocal inflection for maximum effect -- claim otherwise.

Anybody with a functioning brain knows that the overwhelming majority of the population of Britain on the eve of Abolition was living a meager subsistence existence and that abolition was part of widespread social reforms which were brought in precisely because Britain's working class was mistreated and in so much poverty that the country was on the cusp of revolution. Pockets of revolutionary resistance did pop up all over Britain and were violently suppressed and are now erased from the history books. Most people couldn't afford to feed their own children, never mind own slaves. As usual, the BBC is just the public propaganda arm of the British intelligence services who, like their US counterparts, are very likely the very ones who started and are directing these divisive groups. It's all a scam to divide people so they can control us.  They're also the instigators and controllers of the far right too who are simply another form of controlled opposition. I wouldn't want to leave them out of this. Left and right is a false dichotomy of control. They're both coming at you from different angles to push the same thing: more government control.

British intelligence services?

Lol.  That's a huge does of paranoia right there.

[FDR]

12 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

British intelligence services?

Lol.  That's a huge does of paranoia right there.

It must be so lovely to live in a bubble of sheltered ignorance of the world.

Edited July 3, 2020 by FDR

[Neil Down]

47 minutes ago, FDR said:

It must be so lovely to live in a bubble of sheltered ignorance of the world.

He gets by...

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, FDR said:

It wasn't widespread at all, no matter how many times empty-brained people on TV -- who are all direct or indirect agents of the British intelligence services and paid actors reading from a script and using carefully rehearsed vocal inflection for maximum effect -- claim otherwise.

Anybody with a functioning brain knows that the overwhelming majority of the population of Britain on the eve of Abolition was living a meager subsistence existence and that abolition was part of widespread social reforms which were brought in precisely because Britain's working class was mistreated and in so much poverty that the country was on the cusp of revolution. Pockets of revolutionary resistance did pop up all over Britain and were violently suppressed and are now erased from the history books. Most people couldn't afford to feed their own children, never mind own slaves. As usual, the BBC is just the public propaganda arm of the British intelligence services who, like their US counterparts, are very likely the very ones who started and are directing these divisive groups. It's all a scam to divide people so they can control us.  They're also the instigators and controllers of the far right too who are simply another form of controlled opposition. I wouldn't want to leave them out of this. Left and right is a false dichotomy of control. They're both coming at you from different angles to push the same thing: more government control.

Did you watch it?  The data was taken from records held at Kew of applications for compensation by slave owners.  Many owners receiving the equivalent of millions now, although there was one owner who received just under £2 for the one slave they owned.  

Given the subject matter,  it was remarkably apolitical, but didn't shirk from the degradation involved.  In no doubt, there were other awful social injustices at the time, but this was the story of the slave owners and the compensation they were given. Many of the owners were women who inherited plantations and estates and for whom slave ownership was their only source of income. 

Amongst the slave owners there were also the illegitimate children of plantation owners who exercised the "droit du seigneur" over female slaves. Those children would have automatically been classed as slaves too, but it would seem that in some cases the fathers legitimized their offspring.  

It was a very interesting programme. 

[Andy Onchan]

8 hours ago, Mr Shoe said:

Nah. Just being sarcastic. Always bemused how people fawn over those politicians whose every word is focus group tested. But Trump baaaad! Obama would make a wonderful dinner guest, but he was a pretty ineffectual leader. 

Actually, I think  the momentum of a machine like the US is so immense that an individual (be it Trump, Obama, Ghandi or Father Dougal McGuire) has very little effect on the country.

I think you underestimate Fr. Dougal.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 hour ago, FDR said:

It must be so lovely to live in a bubble of sheltered ignorance of the world.

That's fairly rich coming from you and the utterly delusional world you multiply inhabit.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

23 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

He gets by...

You clearly don't which is reflected in your poor trolling levels.  No wonder you were banned from iomtoday.

[FDR]

46 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Did you watch it?  The data was taken from records held at Kew of applications for compensation by slave owners.  Many owners receiving the equivalent of millions now, although there was one owner who received just under £2 for the one slave they owned.  

 

Again, a tiny minority of the population. And who paid them the money? British taxpayers, the overwhelming majority of whom never had any involvement in slavery. It was actually a massive wealth redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. An utter swindle by the people in power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Something they do all the time.

Edited July 3, 2020 by FDR

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, FDR said:

Again, a tiny minority of the population. And who paid them the money? British taxpayers, the overwhelming majority of whom never had any involvement in slavery. It was actually a massive wealth redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. An utter swindle by the people in power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Something they do all the time.

I allude to that very point. 

[FDR]

You literally said, on page 90 of this thread:

9 hours ago, Gladys said:

The main message was how embedded slavery has been in the development of Britain, primarily economically.   Not least was how widespread slave ownership was, but also in the compensation paid to slave owners (not the slaves) on the abolition of slavery. 

1. It was not widespread. 

2. The compensation paid to the slave owners (absurd and unjust in hindsight, but ultimately a necessary compromise at the time to get abolition passed) was paid for by the widespread majority who had no involvement in slave ownership.

[Gladys]

I don't  know why you are so angry, but ownership was widespread, more than we generally have understood. I did not say the working classes had slaves, that would be arrant nonsense.  Instead of getting boiled up, try watching it. 

I also literally said in the same post:-

The bailout was funded by taxes, which at the time were consumption taxes not income tax which didn't exist at the time.  So, the impoverished were hardest hit. 

 

[FDR]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

I don't  know why you are so angry, but ownership was widespread, more than we generally have understood. 

 

It was absolutely not widespread. And I'm angry because the crimes and guilt of a small wealthy elite are being projected onto me personally, despite no involvement, simply because I happened to be born white. It's outrageous and it's a notion that is totally racist to the core.

[Declan]

20 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I don't  know why you are so angry, but ownership was widespread, more than we generally have understood. I did not say the working classes had slaves, that would be arrant nonsense.  Instead of getting boiled up, try watching it. 

I also literally said in the same post:-

The bailout was funded by taxes, which at the time were consumption taxes not income tax which didn't exist at the time.  So, the impoverished were hardest hit. 

 

I suppose it depends by what you mean by widespread. The vast majority of people were industrial or agricultural workers who didn't have spare money to invest in anything.

BUT the ownership did extend into the middle classes, through investment schemes. It was common for widows or unmarried daughters or idiot third sons to live off a modest "private income" and often that would be shares in plantations that they never thought about. Just as our pensions are probably invested in fossil fuels and arms that we may be uncomfortable with.

So it was more widespread than the elite we may picture but it didn't extend to the majority.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Declan

[Gladys]

You are projecting the crimes and guilt on yourself, I am not. 

You can't just ignore it in case you feel implicated, but you can learn about it. I have no guilt; I didn't participate or profit from slavery, but I do try to understand history. 

You are right that the money to meet these compensation payments were raised by taxes, and that thus impacted mostly on the poor, and so could be a form of wealth redistribution.  But that is what happened. 

[quilp]

Orwell did well enough from his grandfather's slave-estate.