So the issue is whether the cost of ending slavery to Britain was greater that the profits made from slavery. And that’s it. I can imagine it would be hard to provide numbers, given how long ago the events occurred. The main point Clarkson makes, that Britain did a lot to end slavery, stands.
There’s something that most of us do, even at our best we forgive but very seldomly we forget. Forgetting significant wrongdoings and their perpetrators is pretty much universaly considered a foolish thing. Particularly when lives are at stake. Also funny that Clarkson, with his boomer extraordinaire verve, strikes me as the kind of person that would mock an excon for his/her criminal past just to piss off the PC or “woke” crowd.
So, not even going into the merits of his wonky thesis, even conceeding that this great amount of attempted remediation was done, I’m not exactly sure why people shouldn’t be allowed to keep remembering, despising and even protesting the initial crime. Especially if they believe that justice hasn’t been served, and I don’t think it is hard to see why they might think that to be the case if the biggest argument against is “but more money and a lot of lives of poor sods were spent trying to fix it”
I think the claim that we spent more ending slavery than we ever gained from it is one hell of a specious claim, considering that the current position of this little island as one of the strongest economies in the world is one hell of a bit of evidence towards us being a net beneficiary.
I do think Clarkson’s side have some points, and I do think the “lefties and Corbyn fans” he rants about can be guilty of over-simplifying the past and the ethics of it themselves, but it’s pretty clear that slavery is a wrong that has never been righted, whatever way you look at it.
I wonder what Jeremy would reckon about the fact that vastly more money was spent compensating slave owners for their lost property than to allow the former slaves to achieve a decent life.
4 comments
So the issue is whether the cost of ending slavery to Britain was greater that the profits made from slavery. And that’s it. I can imagine it would be hard to provide numbers, given how long ago the events occurred. The main point Clarkson makes, that Britain did a lot to end slavery, stands.
There’s something that most of us do, even at our best we forgive but very seldomly we forget. Forgetting significant wrongdoings and their perpetrators is pretty much universaly considered a foolish thing. Particularly when lives are at stake. Also funny that Clarkson, with his boomer extraordinaire verve, strikes me as the kind of person that would mock an excon for his/her criminal past just to piss off the PC or “woke” crowd.
So, not even going into the merits of his wonky thesis, even conceeding that this great amount of attempted remediation was done, I’m not exactly sure why people shouldn’t be allowed to keep remembering, despising and even protesting the initial crime. Especially if they believe that justice hasn’t been served, and I don’t think it is hard to see why they might think that to be the case if the biggest argument against is “but more money and a lot of lives of poor sods were spent trying to fix it”
I think the claim that we spent more ending slavery than we ever gained from it is one hell of a specious claim, considering that the current position of this little island as one of the strongest economies in the world is one hell of a bit of evidence towards us being a net beneficiary.
I do think Clarkson’s side have some points, and I do think the “lefties and Corbyn fans” he rants about can be guilty of over-simplifying the past and the ethics of it themselves, but it’s pretty clear that slavery is a wrong that has never been righted, whatever way you look at it.
I wonder what Jeremy would reckon about the fact that vastly more money was spent compensating slave owners for their lost property than to allow the former slaves to achieve a decent life.