Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Educating the slaves

It seems that the government—bowing to pressure from yet more special interest groups—are going to bugger about with the school curriculum again.
Britain's involvement in the slave trade is to be studied by all secondary pupils in England from September.

Oh, right. What aspects of it, I wonder?
Children will study the development of the trade, colonisation and how slavery was linked to the British empire and the industrial revolution.

Uh huh. And will they be studying how Britain, almost single-handedly brought an end to the trade? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller...
The curriculum has been developed with the assistance of the Understanding Slavery Initiative which encourages teachers, educators and young people to examine the history and legacies of the transatlantic slave trade through museum artefacts.

The initiative's learning project manager Ruth Fisher said: "There's a lot of mis-education about slavery and it hasn't really been taught in schools at all.

"It's quite interesting in terms of today's history and what students need to know about the past to understand the present.

"You can't really talk about the history of the British empire without discussing this part of history."

She also suggested the sheer impact of slavery on the British economy and how involved it was with slavery has often been underplayed.

Well, this may well be true: however, what is almost always underplayed is how much it cost Britain to bring the trade to an end. As several of us pointed out last year, bringing about the abolition was done so at a colossal cost to Britain (and not just from loss of free labour). In fact, as Timmy pointed out, the abolition of the slave trade cost more than the benefits.
Good, so because our forefathers made a lot of money out of this then we should compensate those harmed. Which is interesting, because the Royal Navy gos on to make another, further claim:
Overall, the nineteenth-century costs of suppression were bigger than the eighteenth-century profits.

Now isn't that an interesting thought? Indeed, they go further:
It was costing financial capital – Britain did indeed pay heavily in ‘subsidies’ to other European countries to induce them to give up or at least curtail their trade in slaves; somewhat less to numerous chiefs on the African coast for the same purpose; vast sums to its own slave-owners in the West Indies to purchase the freedom of their slaves in 1833; more again to meet the costs of maintaining a squadron on the coast of Africa. It has been estimated that great as was the wealth generated by the slave trade in the half century before 1807, the costs of suppressing it added up to a similar sum:¹ “.. by any more reasonable assessment of profits and direct costs, the nineteenth-century costs of suppression were certainly bigger than the eighteenth-century benefits.” Above all, the campaign was costing the lives of British seamen: a sacrifice that might be worth making to put an end to the slave trade, but a sacrifice wasted if the only result was further suffering for many of the trade’s victims.

So what we have here is what I would call a very interesting situation indeed.

Isn't it just? And what do you want to bet that this information that will be taught to our little darlings in the classrooms? What do you want to bet that the curriculum insists that the guilt is laid on good and thick? Further, there will probably be a requirement to hire some Black Advocacy Group to come in and teach the kiddies—perhaps through the medium of a play, or a physical daaaaarrrsse theatre piece—about the horrors that their ancestors might have endured.

But the idea that—realising the error of her ways (and I see that they do intend to mention Wilberforce)—Britain spent more money suppressing the slave trade (because it was right to do so) than she ever benefited from said trade...? No, that won't get a look-in: I guarantee it...

UPDATE: the Conservative Party Reptile—who is, if I recall correctly, a history graduate—pisses all over these idiots' chips in quite spectacular fashion. Here are a few highlights...
The numbers of British people directly involved in the slave trade, whether in shipping the poor slaves across the Atlantic or using slave labour on plantations in the British West Indies, was so low. There were no slaves in England after that remarkable judgment by Lord Mansfield in the case of R v Somerset "The air of England has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it." So, while the slave trade was an important aspect of world history, I'm not sure that it's a central facet of British history.

Well, the thing is that the slave trade has very little relation to the pattern of British colonisation - in 1807 when the trade was abolished, British colonialism was located predominantly in India, with the West Indies already being marginalised. African colonialism came much later, and European settlement was focused in the south and east - not the west where the slave trade was centred. Equally, what we really know as the British Empire was a creation of the mid-to-late nineteenth century more than the 18th. By the time the flag was flying and the map was being painted pink, the relation of Britain to the slave trade was in spending massive amounts of money - more according to some than was earned in the trade - in trying to stamp out the global trade.
More importantly, despite the Marxist view that the industrial revolution was brought about by the surplus profits of the slave trade, there simply isn't the evidence to support this. Even at the peak of the trade, the money it was bringing in was marginal at best. Stanley Engerman, professor of economic history at Rochester, has calculated that the contribution made by slave sale proceeds to the British economy in 1770 - at the height of the trade - was a mere 0.0054% of National Income. The point here is that this is contentious economic history and certainly not settled historical fact - the teaching of the industrial revolution should really not be taught as an adjunct to the slave trade.

Teach children about the Empire by all means - it's hard to comprehend any British History after about 1750 if you don't talk about it - but don't pretend that slavery is all that it was, or that the slave trade is what has driven modern Britain, because it wasn't, and it hasn't.

Not that any of this... er... historical fact is going to make any impression on these agenda-driven loonies: our children will be taught that this oh-so-fucking-wonderful Utopia that they inhabit was built solely on their evil ancestors' joyous exploitation of the utterly innocent African slaves, and that they should feel very, very guilty.

And in the inner city schools, the (predominantly black) children will no doubt be told that they should feel a sense of entitlement because the evil whities enslaved their great-grandparents and made them pick cotton in Sunderland, or something.

The agenda is guilt, ladies and gentlemen, and I hope that you feel its crushing burden even now—or it will be back to the gulag school, for a healthy dose of re-education, for you...


Thatcher's Child said...

One of the points that NEVER gets discussed in any educational piece I ever read is how the individual's profits of slavery were ploughed into UK based ventures. For instance, the Welsh Slate industry was based on initial funding made from the slave trade as were a number of woollen mills in the North West.

Many of the current big National Trust homes were built with this money - the builders were from local areas who families were then fed by 'slave money'.

The whole chasing down of the benefiters of this 'bad' money really doesn't work on a practical level. Are we all meant to feel guilty because our forefathers didn't believe in a thought process which would be popular 200 years later?

However, as you point out, reality and the education system rarely meet these days!

Anonymous said...

Excellent points already made. The inference that all contemporary Brits sat around sipping tea from dainty bone china cups really annoys me. My ancestors didn't. As far as I know they had a pretty horrible existence of their own - in common with most of their compatriots. The same is probably true for most of us - including the likes of Jeremy Paxman.

Roger Thornhill said...

Self-loathers of the world unite!

The aim is to fracture, divide, undermine. The beating heart of Socialism pumps pure poison.

Anonymous said...

Nice cherry picking of quotes from the article.

It mentions abolition several times:

"The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) said all children aged 11 to 14 would be required to study the nature and effects of the slave trade, resistance to it and its abolition."

"Topic areas suggested by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority include colonial rule in Africa, the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the British empire, and the work of reformers such as William Wilberforce, MP, and Olaudah Equiano."

Anonymous said...

Are they going to look at Islam's 1200 yr involvement with the slave trade in Africa? A slave trade that is still going on today in countries like Sudan.

Approx 12 million slaves were taken West out of Africa; approx 90% of them survived the journey. Approx 140 million slaves were taken out of Africa by Islam; approx 90% died on the journey.

And what about the Islamic slave trade out of India? Given that something like 80 million Hindus and Buddhists were killed by Islam, how many slaves are we talking about? Does anyone else here know the origins of the name "Hindu Kush" - we've all heard the name, and know where it refers to, but how many know what it refers to?

I doubt very much any of my ancestors gained benefit from the slave trade. They were/we are all peasants.

I've had a good idea though - why don't we estimate how many of our ancestors were enslaved by the Barabary pirates and ask the North African countries for compensation ('cos let's face it - that's what this whole thing is all about)? And while we're at it, let's calculate an estimate of how many of our ancestors ended up in the slave pens of Rome, then ask the Italians for compensation.

Whole thing is bloody ridiculous isn't it, if it isn't ALL taught in detail.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Children will study the development of the trade, colonisation and how slavery was linked to the British empire and the industrial revolution.

If you are correct in your cost-benefit analysis, then surely the brighter pupils will be asking "Why did we end it then?"

It would almost be worth being back at school just to make that point.

Anonymous said...

I don't suppose the curriculum will go back as part as the 1600s either:

Anonymous said...

I fucking despair. Let's all just kill ourselves.

But first, let's we all have to fellate Robert Mugabe. Let's also take it up the shitter from Barack Hussein Obama, let's rim Polly Toynbee's incontinent, syphilitic arsehole (the one she talks through) and then tea-bag Pilger.

I bag taking Pinter's Mini-Me in my lug-hole (the cunt).

And then before we all finally do the deed and off ourselves, let's convert to Islam because the Koranimals, following their depraved slave owning monkey-felcher, still have a fucking slave-trade whilst still managing to be a Religion of Peace. Truly Allah is most wise.

We'll all be in Allah's paradise then with 72 sex-slaves.

DK,Oh buggerfucktwat, you've spoilt a pleasant Tuesday for me, you cunt. I'm in a blow-torching nipples and making people eat them and say it tastes like chateaubriand mood now. And they will because it'll be their genitals next...

Old Holborn said...

from the office of national statistics for England and Wales 2005.

number of reported victims of racist violence.

1. white 75,912
2. Asian 28,634
3. other 10,446
4. black 7,408
5. Jewish 82

now compare this to expectation of victimhood %, in other words how the media and Goverment portrays racism to create myths as to who believe they are likely to be victims -

percieved expectation of victimhood(not actual victimhood) -

1. jewish 24.87%
2. other 24.84%
3. black 24.40%
4. asian 23.98%
5. white 1.9%

Now for the ACTUAL percentage of victimhood rather than percieved victim hood, in other words who actually gets violently attacked rather than who just thinks they are likely to get attacked.

Actual victimhood -

1. whites 61.98%
2. Asian 23.38%
3. other 8.53%
4. black 6.5%
5. jewish 0.068%

these figures show that the media and the goverment are brainwashing the public and giving out anti white racist propaganda, by constantly portaying ethnic minorities as the majority victims when the real victims in the highest percenatge are White indigenous.
knife crime london april 1st - june 2008

victims -

white 222
black 61

the criminals -

black 124
white 64

immigrants `not working` figures by country of origin
institute for public policy research 2007

Somalia 81%
Turkey 59%
Bangladesh 56%
Pakistan 55%
Iran 48% (legal marriage age 9)
Cyprus 32% (EU)
Jamaica 31%
China 31%
Portugal 30% (EU)
Poland 15% (EU)
Austrailia 11%

council/social housing taken by immigrants

Somalia 80%
Turkey 49%
Bangladesh 41%
Portugal 40%
Jamaica 35%
Iran 33% (legal marriage age 9)
Zimbabwe 20%
Cyprus 16%
Pakistan 15%
China 9%
Poland 8%
Australia 5%

Anonymous said...

Not only will the part of Islam in slavery (and its current ambitions to enslave people by enforcing their religion on others) not be discussed, neither will the role of African tribes in enslaving neighbouring tribes be mentioned. We can also assume the modern socialist principle of perpetuating "anger" about the past and the state rewarding of those who are most angered will not be examined either.

It's all our fault clearly and the children must be indoctrinated according to the lefty-dream.

Trouble is, some of those young people (the swine) will insist on thinking for themselves, so expect to see further revisions of policies and history in an attempt to stamp out freedom of thought.

Anonymous said...

Will someone who understands the difference between wealth and money please post a comment.

Thanks ;)

Anonymous said...

Don't you white bastards understand that you bear permanent racial guilt for all the evil done in the world?

I, personally, look forward to the day when, in the name of ending racism, all white people are killed and their bodies rendered down and used to make soap.

Not until the last honky is dead will racism truly be over.

Anonymous said...

So, the extreme Left is in control of the Department of Education. Bears shitting in woods, etc...

I eagerly await the Conservative Party's denunciation of this...coming any moment now...

TheFatBigot said...

My father was captured by the Germans and put in a prison camp, escaped and re-captured, escaped again and re-captured then put in a labour camp.

How much am I entitled to claim from the German taxpayers?

Unknown said...

DK - Much of what you say is true of course, but not entirely. You go too far. In any case, kids are already taught about the slave trade. At least they have always been taught it at the schools where I have been. Black kids aren't told they should feel a sense of entitlement, they just do.

The complexities of the slave trade are taught. But what is interesting is that the children pick and choose what they hear. And then the liberal guilt to which you refer kicks in and no one questions their assumptions.

Anonymous said...


Leaving land out of it - let's explain the difference between money and wealth.

Let's have a starting position of: I've got all the manufactured goods in the world (all manufacturing sectors), and you've got all the money in the world.

Tomorrow morning you desperately need a car to get somewhere on the other side of the country in a hurry.

How much do you think you're going to have to pay me for it?

I think that by the end of tomorrow I will have all the manufactured goods in the world minus one car, and I will also have all the money. You will have one car.

You have an additional problem: you now need to buy some petrol. Your problem? I own all the plant needed (manufactured good, remember) to extract and refine the oil to produce the petrol. And you've got no money left ...

We are going to learn the hard way the difference between wealth and money when we can no longer afford to buy all the imports manufactured by the industrial capacity we exported to India and China - e.g.

A gross simplification of course, but it about sums it up. Land and territorial waters are another form of the wealth family, as is the ingenuity of the people occupying said land.

Anonymous said...


That's assuming I even want your money in the first place. After all, money's only any good for what you can buy with it - and there's nothing for me to buy ... I've already got it all. Other than that, money is worthless, as is gold apart from the tiny amount needed for particular industrial purposes. (leaving land out of the equation, still)

Patrick said...

More reaosn to home school these days,,,

Anonymous said...

By all means let them be taught about the slave trade.

Let them be taught that the British bought slaves from the black African tribal leaders, who were already in that business.

Let them be taught that Wm Wilberforce was ranting about injustice to the black slave while simultaneously opposing the emancipation of the white serfs of the United Kingdom. I don't reckon the wealthy Wilberforce merchant family ever lost a seven year old son in a coal mining accident. Let the children be taught that they are, by and large, the descendants of those serfs.

Let them be taught that they are expected to feel guilty, because someone the same colour as them, traded in slaves of a different colour. Then try explaining to them how that is anything other than racism.

And let them be taught about the activities of the Berbers who raided the coastal zones of the British Isles for white slaves, who were customarily castrated prior to being sold in the markets of North Africa. At least, the ten percent who survived...

And finally, show them how nothing has really changed in the Sudan, and Mauretania, where the Arab slave traders still harvest the black man for the retail market.

It is not what they are taught, it is what is withheld that is the problem.


Anonymous said...

The slave trade should be taught but in context. Almost every civilisation in human history, from the Aztecs to the Chinese, had well developed slave trades. The British slave trade did not end with the abolishing of the slave trade, coolies were slaves in everything but name. Slavery is the story of exploitation inherent in capitalism. The story of child labour and the resistance of the establishment to a minimum wage is all part of the same story and so to the story of cheap immigrant labour.

Anonymous said...

Yes, let’s have the story of slavery in Britain and how it changed our nation. Those Romans enslaved our ancestors and brutalised us, ever wondered why there are so many black haired people wandering around Britain today? They brutalised and destroyed the real indigenous nation, the red headed nation!

Those Vikings were not much better either, they neutered their male British slaves.

The Dubh Gall, the black foreigner, should not be allowed to keep us down any longer; our children should at long last be told the truth!

Our noses are thin, our hair is red and we have freckly pale skin, we are beautiful!

TheFatBigot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TheFatBigot said...

"Our noses are thin, our hair is red and we have freckly pale skin, we are beautiful!"

My nose is red, my hair is thin and I have blotchy pink skin. I am ... oh, never mind.

Roger Thornhill said...

"The story of child labour and the resistance of the establishment to a minimum wage is all part of the same story and so to the story of cheap immigrant labour."

To quote the Bard: "bollocks".

You cannot equate slavery to minimum wage, that is just disingenuous puff. Minimum wage condemns the unskilled to a life of idleness, destroying them as surely as slavery while likely destroying a good many around them, too.

Tim J said...

Thanks for the link DK - it's worse, not only am I a history graduate, I'm also completig a doctorate in the damn stuff.

My main beef with the proposed teaching is not that kids shouldn't be taught about the slave trade - it's just that they shouldn't be taught that it has a profound importance to British history. Except for the slaves themselves - who I'm sure we can all agree got a very rough deal out of the whole thing - the social, economic, diplomatic and colonial implications of slavery were marginal at best.

The only time slavery was an important or financially relevant part of British policy was when the Royal Navy was spending an awful lot of blood and treasure in eradicating it.

Dr Evil said...

Slavery eh?

Will it cover:

Ancient Greece........slaves
Roman Empire...........slaves
Ottoman Empire (muslims)..slaves until right up to the end in 1918
Europe in general.......slaves AKA serfs upto around 500 years ago

Arab slavers operating in Africa
Africans selling Africans to Arab slavers

Europe has had a long history of slavery and it was the British Empire, God bless us, that stopped slavery and enforced the ban at a huge cost. Will it be taught in context? Like at the time slavery was legal? I doubt it. We have nothing to be ashamed about. That was then, this is now. End of story.

Anonymous said...

sir henry morgan

Hindu Kush is 'death of Indians' isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Masa, what is a poor black chile to do these days. I has no job, an barely enough money for my spliff and lager.

It all de fault of de white man my teacher done tol' me that. If my ol granmammy was not forced to pick cotton in Liverpool for 80 hours a day 9 days a week so that de money could fund a group called de beetles and make more money for de honkey then I would be a brain surgeon and as rich as dat nice man Mr Mugabe.

Roger Thornhill said...

ol'man river, go jump in a lake.

Anonymous said...


Correct - or "Hindu Death" as I understand it. It was the slave route from India back into Arabia. So many died en route from the Muslim brutality that the Indians called it Hindu Kush.

Anonymous said...

Yes it is all one liberal left self loathing fest. A snippet from the BBC article makes their intention clear;
'The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) says links could be made to emancipation, racial segregation and the 20th Century civil rights movement in the US.'
WTF has that got to do with British History? Unless it is to point out we suffered none of these issues because we abolished Slavery long before the US.
While they are at it perhaps they could mention that during the American War of Independence the slaves fought with the 'evil' British and had we won they would have been freed a hundred years earlier.
Perhaps they intend to highlight that this vile trade, that had been going on since before recorded history, was first abolished by the British inspired by Christian enlightenment.
No. I thought not.

Anonymous said...


Please moderate your language 'go jump in a lake' indeed. This is a decent blog, comprised of restrained langauge and comment.

Now please go and fuck yourself you miserable, humourless socialist cunt.

Anonymous said...


I have just read over my intemperate comment to your good self. To call someone a socialist in polite company is indeed a mark of poor upbringing and I apologise most unreservedly.

Anonymous said...

Dunno what it's like these days, but I dropped history when I was 13 - not that I wanted to, particularly, just the timetable didn't allow me to choose it with my other subjects - and in those first 3 years I wasn't taught anything about slavery, anything about the British Empire, and bugger all about the Industrial Revolution. ISTR we were mainly taught about ancient kings (Ethelred the Unready springs to mind), some stuff about WW1 & WW2, err, and that's all I can remember.

Mind you, this was 20 years ago, so the evil socialist mindrot had already well set in.

Anonymous said...

Are they going to talk about the historical contribution of Muslim slavers to the slave trade, and how not only have they not repudiated slavery (if Muhammad did it it is by definition halal) they still practice it in countries ruled by Islam? No, our Muslim overlords might not like that.

Anonymous said...

"Black kids aren't told they should feel a sense of entitlement, they just do."

Just because they didn't tell them in so many words, doesn't mean they didn't tell them.

"Let them be taught that Wm Wilberforce was ranting about injustice to the black slave while simultaneously opposing the emancipation of the white serfs of the United Kingdom. I don't reckon the wealthy Wilberforce merchant family ever lost a seven year old son in a coal mining accident. Let the children be taught that they are, by and large, the descendants of those serfs."

Serfdom? Don't confuse wage labourers with shitty conditions for serfs.

Anonymous said...

As said: "Children will study the development of the trade, colonisation and how slavery was linked to the British empire and the industrial revolution.

Uh huh. And will they be studying how Britain, almost single-handedly brought an end to the trade? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller..."

Erm, the British Empire in the 16th Century and the British Empire in the 18th Century were kind of different. People change. Times change.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...