"The British Crusade Against Slavery"||I Never Knew This Part Of History Until Now!
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 01. 2023
- This is a reaction to a member of the family's request and you can leave the next request by simply subscribing and leaving your request in the bottom of any video.
- Zábava
As a British guy, it’s nice not to be hated for once…
Thomas Sowell was teaching this information way back in the 1980s, but folks are busy, and most still don't know the real story.
I was just a baby 😂😂😂 but I get where you coming from
@@WildnWithMarcus you would probably really like Thomas Sowell. You really should check him out.
I think most Brits of my generation were raised to never ask someone to do something for you that you can do for yourself & also never do for someone that which they can do for themselves. I think the principle might be sliding lately though.
its great principles nonetheless
It's probably mentioned below numerous times but it wasn't until 2015 Britain paid off the debt associated with this crusade.
Actually, if we include the costs of sending the ships out. The supply of those ships the pay per head, the cost of paying the crew. It would’ve added an extra year or two due to how the British paid off their loans back then (they didn’t like to do it all at once.)
The drawing of slaves packed into a ship wasn't a "How to" diagram, it was created by the abolitionists to show the cruelty.
gotchu thanks for educating
We still have the slave trade in the UK. The wife is always making me do things against my will 😄
I feel your pain brother and no matter how well said task is done it’s never to her standards😀
that Marriage my friend 🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩
yea but i bet you paid for the licence :)
The truth is not tought because it don't divide,the controllers need division.
facts
When Britain abolished it's slave trade about half a dozen African kingdoms complained! King Gezo of the Dahomey was on record saying he'd do anything the British asked but give up slavery.
Britain signed about 50 anti slaving treatise with West African kingdoms and any that refused to stop got bombarded into stopping. The slave port of Lagos, Nigeria was one such location. Lagos renamed it's independence square after a local slave trader. You can see a statue of her there today.
When the transatlantic slave trade had largely stopped, they diverted ships to East Africa to stop the Arab slave trade. They stopped patrolling East Africa in the 1970's.
Look up the photos from the HMS Sphinx that captured Arab slavers in Oman and the sailors breaking off the chains of the African slaves in 1907?
dam this is nice to my stomach I love knowing history thanks again for sharing
@@WildnWithMarcus if you're interested, type 'my great grandfather was a slave trader' into your search engine and you'll find at least two articles from modern Nigerians saying how their recent ancestors was still slaving in the 1950's.
@@josm1481which HMX Sphinx? There are like 7 of them, I’d love to read her story.
@@sarahshaw7315 I'm not sure but if you search you'll find it. You can also find pics of the Daphne with decks full of freed slaves.
@@josm1481 I have tried to find the general engagement but also the story of HMS Sphinx but can’t find either sadly
Thank you Britain.
Glad you're checking out Sargon of Akkad.
Marcus… I can “vaguely” remember a time growing up where in order to learn about things like this, you actually had to READ BOOKS (yes, we DID have them back then) but now… You can read & learn about topics like this with a simple search & a click of a button!!! ▶️👈😁
It was never easy to find this information. Many books didn't include this stuff and the few which did were rarely available in the local library. Most teachers are utterly ignorant about these things and those who do know are scared to mention it because they will be accused of racism and lose their jobs.
Britain took out a loan of 20 million pounds approximately around 20 billion in todays money to fund the end slavery. Some of this went to slave owners to buy slaves and set them free as well as the up keep of the boats and the bonuses paid to the crew for each slave saved and freed. It has take British until 2015 to pays this back.
There were very many black sailors in the Royal Navy, helping the British to end the slave trade.
Sargon of Akkad - The Lotus Eaters...good channel
thanks, family and ill check this out soon
@@WildnWithMarcus Sargon of Akkad is the guy who narrates this video 👍
OOoOo thanks for that I'll 📌 this to be considerate of his hard efforts 👌
@@WildnWithMarcus his name is Carl Benjamin, if you wanna get in touch, and not have to use his username. (just a bit more personal)
As far as I'm aware slavery with Portugal, who were mostly send to the Brazilian silver mines(silver was basically the "gold standard", more silver means a bigger economy for that country), was hell on Earth and most died after a few years already requiring a constant supply of new slaves.
In comparison, slavery in the US and it's plantations was IN COMPARISON rather good because the slave population actually grew. Obviously requiring less of a constant supply of new slaves.
I also think it's important to understand that the countries in the slavery trade were the default. They weren't "cartoon evil" or anything, they were the norm.
I do see where you may think it was better but to put son upon mother, daughter upon father, sell the children of our ancestors like puppies maybe there was no rather good it was horrifying and even more horror just my opinion. I am glad we have come so far now that's why history is important it took brave, very brave people to stand against the "norm" for that I am grateful because that took courage and set the tone for the freedoms so many enjoy today.
@@WildnWithMarcus
The "not evil" thing was to examplify that the UK here went above and beyond.
It wasn't that everyone was evil and the UK was "normal".
@@Londronable I understand I meant no harm I just wanted to emphasize on the horrors of it but I do understand what you mean
Yes, it's relative/comparative but the Brazil imported 4.5 million Africans v US 400k because they simply died in Brazil. Similar in Zanzibar, where a third of slaves died in the first year.
As I note elsewhere, most actually died in Africa at the hands of the African slavers. They would only take those of value and slaughter the older, ill etc. They'd effectively only take the teenagers, who could be controlled and driven to ports for sale, killing everybody else.
@@josm1481 So for every slave that got to the Americas 2 got to the shores and 10 were taken into slavery before the "rest" was killed.(numbers made up).
Yea, that's horrific to think about.
I love your reaction!
❤🤝
As a British man, close to 60 years of age, none of this is unknown to me, because I was properly educated before the Marxist teachers took over the education system and "re-imagined" and buried this information to suit their needs. The UK only finished paying off the loan needed to abolish slavery in 2015. Which means, that every British taxpayer, over the last 180 years, has been servicing that national debt, used to pay for the abolition of slavery. And, now, we have unlearned left-wing lunatics telling us Brits that we need to pay reparations for the slave trade? Forgetting that we have been paying for the end of the slave trade for over 180 years, and that Britain was the first country in all of the history of humanity to not only call for an end to slavery, but to pay to do so in cash and blood. I say, go to the various African royal houses and families, and ask them, and the various African governments of today, and who were actually the roots of the African slave trade, to pay any reparations required.
this is a very interesting outlook and I appreciate you sharing it with us I think many forget the contributions on behalf of the Brits to ending slavery or maybe some just simply aren't aware I didn't know myself so its possible
Well, British old man, were you also aware that the British were the second most prolific slave traders of the Trans-Atlantic trade route? A full quarter (over 3 million) of all slaves were shipped and traded on British ships. I assume it is probably a point of pride in your education, since it means you guys beat France for once, they are only number 3!
at the end of the day people are human beings I dont care where they come from.we all have our differences But I treat everyone the way i would like to be treated. we are all One
🍻
What makes it even better is that it's a Black Journalist that made the video
I didn't know that thanks for sharing I keep learning something new about this video ad I love it
@@WildnWithMarcus I know my fellow Crackers like to make videos like this to show were Not Racist!! Lol
But it just hits Different when an Uncle Tom does it!!
Thought i would preempt the name calling 😂
@@bigstevie1690 🤦♂👀
@@WildnWithMarcus Was it too much??
C'mon Marcus you know he would have been called worse
and i have to say i got it wrong
His name is Krishnan Guru-Murthy and is British/Indian so he is Technically brown not black
Sorry i don't know any socially acceptable/racist names for Indian people🤷♂
I'm Scottish none of the so called offensive names for Whites mean anything to me
The English FKD Over my people worse than they did anyone else
What video? The one Marcus reacted to here, was made and voiced by Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin). What am I missing?
its also interesting to note that the king had in his army BLACK flag carriers who waved his banner when he was kicking ass n taking names.. ;)
that is very interesting to known thanks for sharing family
It was greedy business men from Britain transporting them to America not the government. But it's certain some were on behalf of some powerful greedy bastard sadly.
He ain't lying about spending our treasure on this venture, we borrowed the wealth of the British empire to bribe officials, it took us up until 2000 and something that our taxes finished paying them all back.
*2015
Watch Amistad, it wasn't very popular in the States because it showed Britain as the heroes with the Slave trade.
Dubrovnik( known as Ragusa at that time) abolished slavery in 1416. Some 350 years before US were founded. Dubrovnik was the first to recognise US as independent country as well :)
this is very interesting I will have to look into this Dubrovnik I appreciate you sharing this gold with me
@@WildnWithMarcus No problem, Dubrovnik has a very interesting history. First state to implement quarantine as well. It was a trading hub in Mediterranean sea, so any visitors and traders had to be quarantined on nearby island. It survived as a state through Ottomans, Venetia, and Hungary real superpowers of that time.
Iirc it was technically the Dutch that did that. When the ship carrying the copy of the declaration of independence sailed into the port of st Eustatius in 1776, a Dutch owned island in the Caribbean, they fired a welcome cannon salute for them. Officially acknowledging the US as an independent nation.
@@Mad-Cowpat That didn't stopped them from trading and transporting slaves up until 19th century. Are you for real?
@@vietnowsoldoyes it did. All slavery under the Norman’s was banned. It was re-instated later under the non-Norman houses.
Too many blame our ancestors for supposed bad bahaviour or morals.That is wrong.
There were no laws broken.There were no laws! Just like we do today,we make it up as we go along.Just like us,they were mostly normal.They were all still living in survival mode.From our relatively safe and secure world it may seem different.They were as moral and decent by their codes as we are today.Even if that code involved slavery.As the video stated,it was a part of normal life virtually everywhere.In someplaces you could even pay off debts or crimes through voluntary slavery.Everyone has at sometime or other in history been both the enslaver,and the enslaved.Noone can hold them criminally responsible for a crime that did not exist in law.Nor hold them to ubiquitous morals that did not exist until my country stepped out into the world.And in my view,would not have had that chance without us.Just saying.
And like my ancestors might have said I am going to say to all of you,get a grip and move on.
Britain was,perhaps,the first nation to attempt to impose a single,moral purpose upon the world.That I think is an interesting concept.
One more thing,reparations.I am happy to accept reparations for Britain for all it's hard work in ending the slave trade,and the investments made in infrastructure,law,education and goodness knows what else in it's former colonies.We can work out the details later.Credit cards accepted.
Good video son.I will have a fat smoke in your honour.
PS.I would like to see you react to a movie......or 3......The Lord of the Rings trilogy.Extended of course.I know technically you do not do movies but hey.
𝘖𝘕𝘌 𝘗𝘏𝘖𝘕𝘌 𝘛𝘖 𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘔 𝘈𝘓𝘓,
𝘖𝘕𝘌 𝘚𝘌𝘈𝘙𝘊𝘏 𝘛𝘖 𝘍𝘐𝘕𝘋 𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘔,
𝘖𝘕𝘌 𝘛𝘞𝘌𝘌𝘛 𝘛𝘖 𝘉𝘙𝘐𝘕𝘎 𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘔 𝘈𝘓𝘓,
𝘈𝘕𝘋 𝘐𝘕 𝘛𝘏𝘌 𝘊𝘏𝘈𝘛𝘙𝘖𝘖𝘔 𝐁𝐈𝐍𝐃 𝘛𝘏𝘌𝘔.
wake up!
We are all the same race, some have small differences in skin pigment and other minor features.
Do you have a Patreon set up yet? I would happily subscribe to you for some exclusive content.
membership is 4.99 links under any video and yes exclusive content with hundreds of videos thank you in advance God bless
@@WildnWithMarcus
I apologise for not seeing that earlier.
God bless to you as well :)
I just clicked the link and it seems to be based upon the CZcams platform. I prefer to support people through direct platforms such as Patreon. Sorry mate I just want to do things that way.
@@laughingachilles all good family you are awesome 🍻
@@WildnWithMarcus
It would be great to support you more directly on platforms like Patreon. That way I know the majority of money is going to you and not supporting other platforms.
I don't know your situation so maybe it's not possible for you but I hope you can use a similar platform at some point. I just like knowing the money I spend goes directly to the people I like if you know what I mean :)
Frankie Boyle was talking about the man-in-the-street attitude in Britain toward race and immigration, not the official national policy. All because of misplaced apostrophe: Britains' vs Britain's. Racism is everywhere. I worked at company that employed a lot of Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Somalis. And each of them would go out of their way to make sure I knew how evil the other two were.
yeah its almost embedded in some of our dna to be a little hateful its sad but awareness goes a long way
Before the Brits stopped enslaving people on their crusade, (just after they lost a good chunk of their American colonies, but I have been *assured* by British peopel that was unrelated), the British were the second 'best' enslavers in the world. A quarter of all Trans-Atlantic slaves were brought in by the British. Only the Portuguese have shipped more slaves (half of all Trans-Atlantic slaves) than Britain. Since the British and the Portuguese were stalwart allies, allied during their slaver days because of their slaver ways, it is no lie to claim that they among themselves controlled the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Brits seem to forget this bit and only loudly beat their chest over what they did after they good millions of people's blood on their hands.
interesting and I do appreciate you sharing this input with us SuzyQue more coming soon
99% off all African Slaves were in slaved by Africans
Wrong,... (you're premise that "Britain is 2nd 'best'." . And it was the West that bought the most slaves)
Did you not even listen to ARAB - AFRICA SLAVERY STATS?
The UK was a country with no slaves, from the start of the 13th century on...
Ye and BEFORE the brits STOPPED THEIR SLAVERY... NO ONE ELSE DID... IN FACT, BRITAIN STOPPED SLAVERY IN ALL OF IT'S COLONIES, THEN HAD TO CHASE THE SLAVERS IN THEIR BOATS, TO SAVE AND FREE THE SLAVES.....
But it sounds like you're saying that because Britain was doing something, that the entire world has done for all of time too. They're just guilty, but THEY didn't do anything, maybe their: g, g, g, g, g, grand father did, but not them. They are going to suffer from the sins of their fathers??
And so, They don't deserve any type of positive reverence, for not only getting their country to stop, but forcing the rest of the world to stop too.
BECAUSE THEY SHIPPED SLAVES TO THE US. BEFORE THEY THOUGHT ABOUT IT ENOUGH TO SAY, F NO, THIS IS WRONG, SO WRONG, WE'RE GOING TO STOP IT WORLDWIDE.
You realise they aren't the SAME PEOPLE, right? That 2.6mil figure was over 400 years. (/s)PEOPLE CHANGE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE 300 YEARS OLDER.......... ffs........
Terribly sad how misinformed you are and the huge lies in this comment enslaved needs to be removed from the whole passage for enslaved replace with bought or traded. The enslaved bit was by African rulers and warlords not European traders and it was at least 30 years before they lost the American colonies some argue that was the reason for their independence not taxes like I said so sad
@@ashleyivins7510 Blaming slavery on Africans via a route of pedantic wordplay is the most pathetic excuse I have received on this subject, so far.
Hi Marcus, just subscribed, thanks for covering this, its important history. There's another video by naval historian Drachinifel which details the exploits of The Royal Navy and their battles with slavers over the course of about a century. I think they captured around 1600 slave ships, blockaded both Africa and Brazil and conducted the shortest war in human history(under an hour) against Zanzibar to put an end to slavery. You may find it interesting so here is a link. czcams.com/video/TiSekII0sjw/video.html
Good luck with your channel, all the best from Scotland
thanks for this its coming soon and welcome to the family I appreciate you being here
An interesting part about it in America, because a lot people still don't seem too know it - and it pains me greatly to say it, but it was the Democrats that were ORIGINALLY the party of slavery, once the party came into existence. And it was Republicans that fought against it. And so of the two parties, the Republicans were the primary party of black people. However, starting under Franklin Roosevelt, the parties started a slow shift, slow because of Southern Democrats. Kennedy was meant to or was going to make change, but we know happened there. So Johnson, a man from Texas mind you, finished with the Civil Rights Act. But in the NEXT election, Nixon and Republicans used it to start flipping the south, using white southerners racism to win, the Southern Strategy. The Republicans also had also started getting the Evangelical vote, how the parties got to where they are now on social issues. But yes, Democrats used to be the party of slavery. However, the other party has taken up the mantle.
that shit is crazy and you are so right so many have no clue as to which party was for or against slavery and knowledge is power thanks for sharing this
@@WildnWithMarcus just know today it is the Republican party that actually has voters who support slavery or racism, and politicians who pander to the racism of the voters.
@@FLQueerLiberal1982 oh yeah I'm already knowing the atmosphere today 🍻trust me
You’d have a hard time finding any official Republican advocating for slavery (in fact, I’d wager that it’d be a nearly unanimous vote to be unfavorable by Republican voters) and that accusation is either very ignorant or very malicious…either way it’s the same divisive rhetoric that mainstream media has used for decades on both sides to create pseudo political divides between average citizens that most often agree about much much more than they disagree about.
It’s no better than the narrative that Democrats used welfare and government dependency to target the poor, vulnerable and suffering freed people that they had fought a war to keep enslaved in order to re-enslave the h m financially and systematically corrupt their household by incentivizing broken families, victimized status, group conformity, tribal mentality (us: good = them: evil), and allowing lower standards of educational benchmarks. Instead of claiming they were inferior due to their race, they started saying they were inferior due to the past.
Millions still flock to the US today and have since the 1700s to become educated and successful that come from the worst environments imaginable, yet in spite of who they are or what they’ve endured, they achieve their dreams nonetheless.
I’m sure the resulting increase of black people in poverty, high crime rates in black communities and the tragic black on black murder rates and the countless young men that die for petty grudges or money and drugs have nothing to do with Democratic policy. Purely coincidental, no doubt, their altruistic, morally pure charity is JUST about to restore the equality that they denied so long ago.
For every fringe radical Neo-Nazi or Supremacist that gets attributed to the Republican party (no matter how much they are PUBLICLY DISAVOWED), I can find a police abolishing protester that believes enforcement of law is an ideal created by white supremacy. We don’t identify with the extremists of our political parties, so we shouldn’t identify our political opposition with them either. Just like most libs, we consider people that are racist or motivated by racial superiority to be too ignorant to qualify any other of their opinions or arguments as valid, even if some align with our own, and socially ostracize them out of the cultural conversations. Also, Dinesh D’Souza is a Native Indian man and was a part of Reagans political campaigns (which used the so-called ‘Southern Strategy’ to win both elections), he explains the true demographics that they focused on, the talking points and imagery they used, and the demographics they actually convinced to vote for them. I strongly suggest you google his video on the subject, or refrain from using inaccuracies/dishonesty to support your arguments…
Actually, the parties *never* switched, and this is gonna be long, but I promise the full picture is important to understand especially in our current political climate with everyone trying to say everyone else on either side is racist which I genuinely think is highly unproductive on BOTH sides. But because of the information I’m about to outline (sourced and quoted from several historical sites), I’m hesitant to vote democrat anymore. Here we go:
“Democrats (were founded as pro-slavery): Since 1828 the Democrats have worked hard to conceal their history of enslavement and bigotry. The Democrats were the pro-slavery party that started the Civil War! The Democrats founded the KKK, held the whip in lynchings, imposed segregation by enforcing Jim Crow laws, and obstructed all the major civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. Democratic party was founded in 1828, but got it's true start in 1829 with Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson, a slave owner, fervently fought Native Americans. He stole their land and then sold it to whites to win political favor. Though they were founded in 1828 the Democrat party, their Website begins the public "Democrat history" in 1920 with Women's suffrage. Why did they start their history 200 year history 100 years after it's founding? The answer is because they are glossing over their racist past. The first 100 years of the Democratic party are the most revealing, but their bigotry continues today.”
Republicans (The GOP or Grand Old Party) were quite literally founded as an anti-slavery party.
“1833 The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded (it was a Republican ideal). One of the founding members of the anti-slavery party was, Susan B Anthony, who had values consistent with the Republican Party. Though the GOP wasn't founded until 1854,they GOP shared consistent values and support of basic individual rights including the abolition of slavery, while the Democrat party would continue to support slavery. Susan B. Anthony died in 1909 well before women got the right to vote, but thanks to her and the Republicans, women got the right to vote in 1920. 1854 Republican party was founded as the anti-slavery party. Founded on March 20, 1854 as the anti-slavery party the GOP's goal was to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act, which was a Democratic threat to extend slavery. Unfortunately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed by congress on May 30, 1854, and it allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. A civil war ensued.”
A bunch more happened in the 1800s including the 1857 ruling by democrats that slaves were not citizens but property, voted on unanimously by 7 democrats with ALL republicans opposed. During the civil war, the republicans ended slavery with the 13th amendment and Republican President Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves, only to be shot by democrat John Wilkes Booth. During the reconstruction era in 1864, Democrats founded the KKK as a response to Republican initiatives. In 1866 Republican Thaddeus Stevens fought for the rights of former slaves proposing the “40 acres and a mule” which was shot down by democrats and intimately never came to fruition. In 1867, Howard University was founded by Republicans. In the 1870s republicans passed the 14th amendment, which officially made black people citizens, as well as Republican President Ulysses S Grant dismantling and prosecuting the KKK, and the Republican Party passing the 15th amendment, giving black people the right to vote.
In the 1900s: In 1924 at the DNC the KKK Klanbake occurred.
In the 1930s, democrats began to lure in black people with economic benefits by offering perks from the new deal, as the Great Depression had hit hard. “With the help of a few key activists, they successfully converted voters to become Democrats. While the New Deal initially helped African Americans get jobs from the government when there were no jobs, it also discriminated against them. The Democrats National Recovery Administration promised new jobs to African Americans, but gave jobs first to whites and also paid blacks less.”
“1934-1960: Democrat resists the American Civil Rights Movement. Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor was an icon of racial intolerance. "Bull" as he was known, entered the Democratic Primary race for a seat in the Alabama House of Representatives in 1934. He defended segregation as he served four Democrat National Conventions. By 1956 he feared integration and became known as the "sheriff." The inconvenient truth is that this Democrat forced the raid of the home Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, a prominent African American, and had three of his minister colleagues arrested for the false charge of vagrancy. Shuttleworth was a target because he had led civil rights activities ~ he had vowed “to kill segregation or be killed by it.”
1940s
1942 Internment of Japanese Americans in World War Two. The Democrats would prefer to gloss over the fact that it was the Democrat Party who interned the Japanese Americans in World War II, specifically Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
1950s
1954 Republicans Strike Down Segregation artificially enforced by a by disobedient Democratic Governor of Arkansas. Infamous for his 1957 stand on segregation, Democratic Governor of Arkansas Orval E. Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent African American students from attending Little Rock Central High School. In so doing, he defied a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and the decision made in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education (written by Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren). Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower removed the National Guard from Democratic state control then sent in Federal Troops ~ the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. Ultimately, Eisenhower stopped Faubus from the obstruction of justice and restored civil rights previously established by Warren!
1956 Republican President Nixon helps desegregate. In 1956, as vice president, Richard Nixon made an important speech in Harlem to declare, “America can’t afford the cost of segregation.” Later Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. thanked Nixon for helping to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Indeed Nixon supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968!
1957 Civil Rights Act: On Sept. 9 1957 Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signs the 1957 Civil Rights Act.”
Why did black voters flee the Republican party in the 1960s? The answer is they didn't.
MLK was shot by a Democrat in 1963, and in 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed. Indeed Lyndon B. Johnson was the Democrat President who signed the Civil Rights act; however while Democratic pundits pretend that the Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, it was really an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.
Dixiecrats who remained Democrats after 1964:
Robert Byrd
Bull Connor
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Orval Fabus
Al Gore, Sr.
Benjamin Travis Laney
Russell Long
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Richard Russell
John McClellan
John Sparkman
John Stennis
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Dixiecrats who became Republicans after 1964:
Miles Godwin
Strom Thurmond
TWO. TWO PEOPLE SWITCHED. Two people doesn’t feel like a whole party, certainly, and absolutely throws into question the “history” that we’ve been taught about the parties.
The switch is propaganda fabricated by Democrats, because they were embarrassed that their party supported slavery once the tides turned.
That’s the historical past, but even into the present day the party that continually brings up race, claims the other side is racist (which at this point feels like deflection just like a cheater is always the one accusing you of cheating to cover up their own indiscretions), constantly forcing you to think about race so that you can never move on and get to a point where people are just people to you, not a stereotype or quota, just always feels sus. I don’t trust it. Not to say I implicitly trust either side, and I will be the first person to call out racism and ignorance in the republican party as well and be very very cautious about whom I vote for, you just can’t pick a side and check a box and trust it, you absolutely HAVE to do your research and vote on policy, not party. Just wanted to put this information out there because it blew my mind when I looked into it, and not nearly enough people know what has really gone down here or on which party the historical blame really falls. Vote your conscience, not what you’ve been told by others or what you’ve believed in the past or what’s just comfortable, that’s all I can say.
There is reason why the British ended the Slave trade and slavery after about 300 years profiting from it but it was not because they grew a conscience and care about black people. The British ended slavery simply because it was no longer profitable because sugar was no longer king. Beet sugar replaced cane sugar. The profits from slavery drove the industrial revolution which created the Industrial Class, the Industrial Robber barons and as such the British plantocracy was no longer powerful. Because slave plantation was no longer profitable, they began to cost Britain and as such they had to go. Britain stopped the slave trade ONLY because Britain did not want her enemies to profit from slavery. At the time Britannia Ruled the waves and Britain feared profits from slavery would help build her enemies Navy to rival Britain. It was purely selfish reasons.
“If all you know about History Comes from British sources then you do not know history”. British version of history was fictional, made up lies but there was a method to their madness. It was designed to propagate British superiority based on the messiah “gift to the world” complex. How are you going to listen to the colonizer's very of history. "Until the story of the hunt is told by the lion, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter." We no longer live in an age where people accept the British or white colonizer and slave master’s version of events, nor in a society where the descendants of the colonizers are the sole authors of the story. We must counter the historians who have sold us, and continue to propagate, a glorious version of the imperial past.
@@jamaicantillidie6626Nope. It's the case that some did not want to give up slavery, but the o overwhelming public opinion was against slavery, and you do a serious disservice to the many people who fought for it from an entirely moral perspective. Abolitionists and anti slavery began in England in the 11th century. Research Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester and Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury and the Synod of Westminster. Research the Scottish position up to James VI and the Stewart dynasty and the Anent Coalyers and Salters Act 1606. The Scots Stewart's ruled over England and introduced slavery in the colonies via private chartered companies, before democracy. Nevertheless, eventually the moral position won out, after the franchise expanded, but do bear in mind that very few had the vote even after the English Civil war. Once the franchise expanded the pressure became greater. The full franchise wasnt even achieved until 1928.
@@shelleyphilcox4743 It is typical of the British to ONLY be against something when they are told that the something in question, is no longer profitable and in fact costing them. The British have NO morals when it comes to living at the expense of others. If it was still profitable the British would justify its continued use like they did for hundreds of years when it was profitable. SO, "eventually the Financial position won out"
@@shelleyphilcox4743 If all you know about History comes from British sources, then you do not know history. British history was fictional and made up. British history was designed to make the British look benevolent and superior and everyone else inferior and dependent. That is why we no longer teach or entertain our history from British sources because it is a lie. We removed your colonial history books that was forced upon us, from our schools.
@@jamaicantillidie6626 The whole world found it profitable! I would suggest that you read UNESCOs General History of Africa as an excellent starting point in your research into worldwide slavery. It is online and free to read. It is written largely by eminent African scholars. Search 'General History of Africa UNESCO' to find it. May I suggest after that looking at the slavery in every other culture and empire since written and oral history began.
I would also gently suggest that if slavery was not profitable, why did it persist across the world to today, despite best efforts to eradicate it?
Don't they teach this in school?
it missed mines 🤷🏾♂
No they don't. I am English born and bred and I was never taught about any of this in school. Most of our education involved memorising monarchs and a ton of stuff about the second world war (most of that was incorrect btw). The education system is a joke.
"WHERE" the british? Don't you mean "WERE" the British?
- corrected thanks I must have been burning that medical leaf that day 🤣🤣🤷🏾♂️
@@WildnWithMarcus I know exactly what you mean mate. 🤪✌️♥️🇬🇧
Yeah I read up on a lot of this horrible shit.
I mean... Americans MUST know slavery was illegal in the Western world DECADES before their civil war, right?
shiiit should know but you see people like Ron Desantomonious 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 don't want the nation to know history for some reason
It's not just the Americans who don't know this, plenty of English school kids are never taught this fact. Likewise they are never taught that slave markets existed before any Europeans started loading ships and sending them to the US. Today kids are taught this mythical idea of westerners turning up to a continent which had no slaves and we threw nets over people and dragged them on to ships. Ok the nets are an exaggeration on my part but that is the general image kids are taught.
The importation of slaves was illegal, not slavery
@@michaeldubin8220
Slavery wasn't legal in the British Isles after at the latest 1569. This is when a slave was brought to England and freed as no person could be a slave in England. This was reinforced around 1700 when the Lord Chief Justice famously said "...as soon as a slave sets foot on English soil he is a free man".
Slavery still existed in the colonies but not on the island of Britain. I think you are confusing these two points.
@laughingachilles1946 no, I'm not confused. "Skerdy" wrote slavery was illegal in the western world decades before the Civil War. Slavery was legal in the USA until 1865 and in Brazil until 1882 if memory serves.
No the British weren't the first to condemn it. But From white I know they were the first to send out ships to fight it.
interesting can you share an example of who was 1st to condemn it? please share I love to learn history and I appreciate you
Love from 🇬🇧❤
much love family thanks
I was once working at a Labour Party, our democrats, fundraising event where Frankie was performing for their leaders, he’s the only person to make me walk out in disgust. And I ADORE offensive jokes. But NOT about raping little boys. And certainly not when iterally every jokes punchline was about child rape. And I mean to the point it made people speculate about his sexual preferences. He’s a scumbag. I felt like I was somewhere I wasn’t supposed to be. Like I wasn’t in on the joke. I was utterly disgusted at the people who spent their days talking about child welfare issues only to spend their nights laughing and joking about the worst of the worst child rape abuse and even murder.
ouch yeah its tough hearing something like that and Frankie is king of offensive but yeah I can understand the discomfort hearing the continuous rant on such a topic