If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Even Steam Engines are "racist" it seems

Discussion in 'Everything Else Heritage' started by davidarnold, Nov 7, 2021.

  1. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Which can be dealt with easily by studying this as historians and not judges.

    It's wrong. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, it'll be wrong in twenty years time. Compensating slave owners for the loss of their "stock" is wrong. I'm sorry if this is strong, but where is the moral argument FOR the compensation of owning slaves? I'd love to be enlightened on this because as far as I can see, that is a ludicrous basis on which to form an argument against an entire industry which - I think we all agree - is morally, ethically, wrong at the outset.

    This is different to "what could be done practically to end slavery" and for which "compensation" is one of several possible answers and outcomes.

    These are the questions the study is hoping to provide answers on. How far did it go? How far do we take it?

    We cannot answer some of these questions without study and debate. However I would be surprised if there was anyone - and I really do mean, anyone - who would immediately stand up and go "I think the slave traders should have been compensated for the loss of their stock".

    There are some things which are hazy and mired in moral issues that need talking out - like reinvesting the compensation - and then there's the question of whether they should have been compensated in the first place, given what they were doing. I know where I stand on that issue, and it's an absolute no, it was morally wrong to compensate slave traders for destroying an industry which basically committed one of the longest standing acts of cultural mass forced migration and genocide.
     
    mdewell, Monkey Magic and DavidH like this.
  2. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'd suggest that there is a very good moral argument for compensating people for the loss of property* as it's possession is made illegal - the alternative is expropriation without compensation. The argument that there is no moral case for compensation relies on a post-hoc view of whether slavery should ever have been permissible, and not addressing the issues of the day.

    As you acknowledge, there is also a practical argument for compensation - that (to quote Nye Bevan of the BMA at the creation of the NHS) "stuffing their mouths with gold" gets opponents to enable something that they would otherwise block.

    The difficult moral issues are those associated with allowing slavery in the first place, the treatment of ex-slaves following emancipation, and what actions are appropriate long after those emancipated are dead and buried. At a practical level, the use of compensation to the slaveowners also raises questions about their economic benefit and therefore necessity - I have seen it suggested that, even without compensation, emancipation was to the economic advantage of the slaveowners as it provided an incentive to improve the efficiency of their farms rather than just rely on traditional mass unskilled labour.

    Historically, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this research, and it will deepen our understanding of how wealth was generated and circulated in the early years of the railways. Politically, it remains to be seen what use may be made of that research, and what arguments it may be used to try to support.

    * - I abhor slavery in all of its forms, but the brutal reality of emancipation was that slaves were classed as property at the time. That meant that, among other things, emancipation involved the expropriation of property legally owned by the slave-owners prior to emancipation.
     
  3. Monkey Magic

    Monkey Magic Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,498
    Likes Received:
    6,845
    Location:
    Here, there, everywhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I am not buying that. There is no moral argument for compensating people for the loss of their property when that property is enslaved people.

    If you are enslaving people, then you have no moral claims to anything. The immorality of slavery (I've yet to find anyone who thinks it was moral or who will admit to thinking that) negates any subjective morality of the sanctity of property or the fig leaf of legalism.

    That it was legal at the time is no argument either. It is a line of defence that is beloved of war criminals and human rights abusers across history.

    I find it strange that there is a defence of compensation for slave owners - compensation from which they and their descendants have benefited long term, and at the same time opposition to compensating the enslaved and their descendants who have suffered the consequences of slavery long term.

    Is there any evidence of that?

    I'd argue the reverse, the structural advantages that compensation gave slave owners allowed them to maintain their position and power and to subvert the emancipation processes. The Gladstones didn't lose as a result of being slave owners, they gained, they didn't have to modernise, they just pumped the cash into railways and got even richer, without having to engage in any reform or modernisation of their plantations.

    I heartily recommend Paton and Smith's 'The Jamaica Reader' especially section IV on post-emancipation society. (The whole series is excellent and well worth digging into)
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2021
    S.A.C. Martin and Nomad like this.
  4. Nomad

    Nomad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    443
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bristol
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Even "addressing the issues of the day" there is no moral argument for compensating the loss of slaves, shame on you. Are you going to quote another reference from the bible to back your position again ?
     
  5. garth manor

    garth manor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    450
    So celebrate Locomotion No 1 but Rocket should be quietly relegated to the back of the museum as its financial source is so tainted, compensation to ensure an action was not opposed is a matter of national shame not pride.
     
  6. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    If you were to argue that for today, I would agree - slavery is well established in law and ethics as beyond the pale. But you are applying a 2021 judgment upon the world of two centuries ago, where those points were not established as a consensus, either morally or legally. That does change the morality of what was done then, and how it was done.
    There's an important difference - the time factor. It's certainly true that the benefits of compensation to the slaveowners were to their short and long term advantage - only a fool or knave would argue to the contrary. I also consider that those emancipated should have been compensated at the time, economically and in terms of their position in society. The difficult moral and practical question is what should happen now, what compensation might mean now, and to whom it should be paid. It is true both that those people have been structurally disadvantaged, and that they are not just prisoners of that background.
    I'll bear it in mind. But I think we agree here - compensation for emancipation gave slaveowners advantages that staying invested in slave plantations would not have given them. Whether they chose to use that capital in new ventures like the railways, or in modernising their existing landholdings, is about how much they benefitted. If anything, I'm arguing that compensation for loss of their slaves was not economically necessary, as they would have gained in any case from the prompt to invest in their plantations. Of course, it's highly likely that such investment would have been to the disadvantage of the formerly enslaved, as the work available to them would have reduced, and in a casual labour or sharecropping world, their position might even have worsened with economic insecurity added to their woes.
     
  7. goldfish

    goldfish Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    14,900
    Likes Received:
    12,241
    Those things were illegal by definition at the time. You can't be a war criminal unless you committed a crime, and you can't abuse rights that didn't exist.

    The starting point should always be truth and transparency. You can't change history, but you can make sure it is recorded honestly and accurately, warts and all, and avoid celebrating today what would be by any decent person's reckoning be appalling acts.

    That's why the research at the top of this thread is so important. We should understand where the amazing artifacts we hold in museums, galleries, stately homes etc. come from, and how they were paid for – it should absolutely be the role of organisations like the NRM or the National Trust to make sure those stories are told (as I know you agree).

    Simon
     
    35B and S.A.C. Martin like this.
  8. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I am struggling with the idea that at the time of slavery that it wasn't seen as morally reprehensible. It absolutely, definitely, was seen as morally suspect by both people without slaves and by those who were slaves. Is only the view of the slave owners and slave traders on morality that which counts?

    I cite the Zong Massacre as evidence against the contrary point of view. Slavery was very much in the public eye and was treated with contempt by those who did not indulge in it, or were forced into it.
     
    Nomad likes this.
  9. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Just to observe, and to give MM his due around the trade off between morality and law, the prior law around the IMT at Nuremberg was limited and sketchy.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. Monkey Magic

    Monkey Magic Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,498
    Likes Received:
    6,845
    Location:
    Here, there, everywhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer

    Not buying the 'it was acceptable and legal at the time'. It is defending the indefensible. And there is still no moral argument for compensating slave owners. It is political and economic self interest dressed up in the clothes of moral justice.

    The critical point is the compensation went to the owners and not the slaves. The money wasn't available for former slaves to actually benefit from emancipation, de jure slavery becomes de facto slavery in all but name.

    That is not actually true. People have been prosecuted for crimes for things that were legal in that state at the time when they were committed. This has certainly been the case also in the former states Communist states. Things that were legal at the time but illegal subsequently. The defendants at their trials used the 'it was legal at the time' defence citing socialist legality. It was rejected. This applies from criminal prosecutions down to lustration.
     
    Nomad likes this.
  11. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I agree with that last point - and the case of the emancipation of the Russian serfs demonstrates particularly clearly. But I stand by my point that, at the time, slavery was - by definition - both accepted and legal. That's precisely why it was made illegal. The problem is not that the slave owners (and I notice you use that technically accurate term) were compensated, but that the position of those emancipated was given little consideration.

    At a different order of severity, I regard the production, distribution and sale of tobacco for smoking as both disgusting and, due to the harms it causes, deeply immoral. I also accept that it is a legal trade, and that if it were to be closed down, the producers should be entitled to compensation for the impact upon them. Just dismissing them as beyond the pale and immoral does not remove their rights - it instead represents a form of expropriative injustice every bit as unpleasant as the "socialist legality" you cite.
    The point that you choose to miss is the role of international law, which their governments had signed up to, which made that "socialiast legality" (a fancy name for might is right) illegal.
     
  12. Nomad

    Nomad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2021
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    443
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bristol
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    You've missed the bus again. How do you have the right and the proof to say that slavery was "accepted", you who recite the bible as if it was going out of fashion, this is tripe bordering on trolling !
     
  13. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    It was accepted, because it was a social norm for there to be slaveowning. That's a matter of historical fact, not opinion.

    As for trolling, if you've nothing useful to say, you may want to reflect that you are posting during daylight - and therefore at risk of turning to stone.
     
  14. misspentyouth62

    misspentyouth62 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,738
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    34D, now flexible
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Whilst the laws have and will change over time, I would argue that human morality remains pretty equal through history and some humans just exploit what the laws of the time allow them to get away with more than others and irrespective of what is ever moral.

    Slavery for the profit of British interests started to take off from latter half of the sixteenth century and those leading the journeys into west Africa were no more than pirates and mercenaries than we might in more modern days view differently as hero Adventurers planting the flag of empire on foreign soil. Hawkins attracted investment from the political elite of the Elizabethan Court and backers who profited included William Cecil the Secretary of State and Queen Elizabeth I herself. Some of the wealth held within the British Monarchy can be traced back to these times and the same Monarchy is yet deep rooted in Christian faith that suggests a very different morality than that ever demonstrated through history. I strongly believe that those involved knew what they were doing at all times and cared little for what morality has ever existed in human psyche. It's about the money, not the morality.

    For those who argue that we should not judge harshly the morality of our ancestors from two hundred years, I would ask two questions :

    Do we think that what many (but not all) peoples from Germany supported through 1930s and 1940's, was morally acceptable more or less than human slavery?

    Has anyone on this thread considered whether people from African and Afro Caribbean cultures think that slavery from two (or four) hundred years ago was morally justified at the time? Is the deed not theirs to judge more so than ours?
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  15. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It was "accepted" by the ruling classes and its own industry, but that does not equate to "morally accepted" by people: which is why so many people fought for so long to eradicate it (see: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act)
     
  16. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    “Accepted” does not mean “universally accepted”; I completely agree that the existence of campaigns to abolish it demonstrates that acceptance was far from universal.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  17. Enterprise

    Enterprise Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,275
    Likes Received:
    3,077
    Might is always right, anytime, anyplace. The law is always what the powerful want it to be. When law is changing it is because power is being contested.
     
  18. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,483
    Likes Received:
    23,713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Quite possibly. Though I'm not sure that's a particularly good defence of the former Warsaw Pact regimes' excesses.
     
  19. Enterprise

    Enterprise Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,275
    Likes Received:
    3,077
    I wouldn't defend Warsaw Pact regimes any more than I would NATO regimes.
     
  20. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,185
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I suggest that the situation around the Abolition of Slavery firstly needs to be seen on the context of how people of African Heritage were viewed at the time - which was very different to now and in the same way that settlements were reached on many nations - Spain & Chile come to mind that allowed them to transition to democracy by giving an indemnity to those that had committed what clearly were crimes under the old regieme.

    I sugest that there is no comparison with The Nuremberg Trials as Germany's unconditional surrender in 1945 was unique.
     

Share This Page