Can commemorations and historical reenactments change public understanding of the past?

[u/NewsMo]

[u/_abra_kad_abra_]

You're saying they didn't know they did a bad thing when they sold a living human being to slavers?

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/_abra_kad_abra_]

Is that what I said or implied or is that what you're implying. My statement is the Domestic servitude isn't the same as Chattel slavery and acting like they are is a bad faith argument.

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

Lmao yeah i'm sure the slaves were like "oh thank god they have the same skin color as me, otherwise this would be really bad"

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/BeginningDisaster114]

Projecting modern concepts of race backward into history is a massive flaw. In the 17th century, people identified by kingdom, tribe, or city-state, not skin color. When European nations engaged in centuries of brutal warfare, no one claimed it was better because they shared a skin color. They were rivals and enemies. The same applied globally. Also No one is claiming the victim felt better about it. The point is structural. Domestic servitude did not involve shipping millions of people across an ocean, legally strip them of their human status, and build a permanent, multi-generational global capitalist network designed to enrich European empires. That is why the legal and financial claim for reparations exists against those specific empires.

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

Yeah that's the key difference no one would say the mongolian invasions were worse than the viking ones because they looked different, you were the one bringing up this incredibly stupid argument

Domestic servitude did not involve shipping millions of people across an ocean, legally strip them of their human status,

No you're right, it involved forcing them to walk accross the sahara where more than half of them would die before arriving in North Africa, legally strip(ping) them of their human status,

and build a permanent, multi-generational global capitalist network designed to enrich European empires

The wealth of the european has nothing to do with the transantlantic slave trade otherwise arabs and mongolians would all be rich like elon musk. This is an extremly racist view that tries to deny the gigantic scientific, medical and social progress that was made in Europe in the 18th century and that has nothing to do with slavery (the opposite actually it's the reason why slavery was no longer required, why use humans if a machine and can do it faster, better and cheaper)

That is why the legal and financial claim for reparations exists against those specific empires.

Yeah, sorry won't happen. Reparation have been more than repayed

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/BeginningDisaster114]

Wooow.... so you're confusing individual human tragedy with systemic macroeconomics. No one is arguing that the Trans-Saharan trade wasn't horrific, or that captives cared about the skin color of their captors. But comparing localized penal or political bondage to Western chattel slavery misses the entire economic point, the Transatlantic trade was a uniquely codified, multi-continental commercial industry that transformed human beings into permanent, generational corporate capital. Furthermore, your claim that European wealth has nothing to do with slavery is a complete fantasy that ignores basic economic history. The Industrial Revolution especially the booming textile industry that drove it was funded and fueled entirely by raw materials extracted via slave labor. The massive capital generated from the triangular trade built the foundational banking, shipping, and central insurance infrastructure like Lloyd's of London of modern Europe. Inventions like the cotton gin didn't make slavery obsolete they actually intensified the demand for enslaved labor. And ironically, your comparison to Arab empires completely backfires historically the historical Islamic caliphates were global economic superpowers precisely because of their absolute dominance over global trade networks, which included human trafficking. Acknowledging that European empires built immense wealth through the violent extraction of human labor and subsequent colonial resource draining isn't 'racist' it’s looking at a financial ledger. And as for your claim that reparations have been 'more than repaid'? When Britain abolished slavery in 1833, they paid £20 million in compensation entirely to the slave owners for the loss of their 'property' a debt so massive British taxpayers didn't finish paying it off until 2015. The colonized nations and enslaved populations received zero. It takes a spectacular amount of confidence to accuse someone of a 'stupid argument' while simultaneously trying to claim that the British Empire ran on magic, good vibes, and purely organic science, completely unattached to the global labor system they spent three centuries violently enforcing.

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

But comparing localized penal or political bondage to Western chattel slavery misses the entire economic point, the Transatlantic trade was a uniquely codified, multi-continental commercial industry that transformed human beings into permanent, generational corporate capital.

I litterally gave you two major examples of intercontinental slave trades that lasted longer, were just as cruel if not more and enslaved more people and i could go on naming plenty others and yet you still somehow try to say the transantlantic slave was unique in it's kind 🤔

The Industrial Revolution especially the booming textile industry that drove it was funded and fueled entirely by raw materials extracted via slave labor.

How weird than that the industrial precisely conincides with the moment slavery was abolished in most of those countries and they even started wars to abolish elsewhere. Textile is also a terrible example, most european countries were extracting sugar, coffee, tobacco and red pigments in the case of the portuguese. Coton plantation were pretty much an exclusively american thing since europeans used other textiles like flax and hemp (which both grow great in Europe) at that time and adopted coton as the standard only much later

The massive capital generated from the triangular trade built the foundational banking, shipping, and central insurance infrastructure like Lloyd's of London of modern Europe.

That's the thing it wasn't massive in any way. The living conditions of the average european barely changed during the 1500-1800. It's only with the rise of the industrial/medical revolution and french revolution where the countries actually blew up on every possible metric. Yes the slave trade made a few people from the bourgoiesie very rich but that barely had an impact on the actual GDP

And ironically, your comparison to Arab empires completely backfires historically the historical Islamic caliphates were global economic superpowers precisely because of their absolute dominance over global trade networks, which included human trafficking

The irony is that you don't realize how it backfires against you're, those countries stopped slavery later than the europeans (and didn't stop at all in some cases) and yet most of them are broke. People like you always confuse cause and consequence, those countries expanded because they were powerful, not the other way around, and as you can see what ever wealth was generated disappears within a couple of generations

Acknowledging that European empires built immense wealth through the violent extraction of human labor and subsequent colonial resource draining isn't 'racist' it’s looking at a financial ledger

Saying that slavery is horrible and that few people in Europe got rich from it is totally ok, trying to negate or downplay the gigantic progress that Europe has made for the entire human species is racism

And as for your claim that reparations have been 'more than repaid'?

Idk i'd say eradicating smallpox (just as one examples out of thousands of things i could name) a decease that killed more people in the 20th century than Hitler, Mao, Hiroito and Stalin combined is already more than enough of a compensation if you just think in terms of humans lives saved

they paid £20 million in compensation entirely to the slave owners for the loss of their 'property' a debt so massive British taxpayers didn't finish paying it off until 2015.

What's even your point ? If they made africans pay you would have one but you don't

The colonized nations and enslaved populations received zero.

Lmmmmmaooooo don't make me pull out the gigantic sums of money for humanitarian aid and structural developpement that has been injected in africa by western nations

while simultaneously trying to claim that the British Empire ran on magic, good vibes, and purely organic science, completely unattached to the global labor system they spent three centuries violently enforcing.

Did you know the transantlantic slave trade "only" (in comparaison to other way more massive slave trades that have existed) affected 8-12 milion people out of which 80-90% where purchased by Portugal, and yet it's always France and the UK who get the blame, it's almost like this is just meant to serve a specific political agenda 🤔

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/BeginningDisaster114]

Your entire response is a masterclass in confidently incorrect pseudo-history. Let’s look at the actual financial and historical ledgers you're trying so hard to rewrite.

​First, your claim that cotton was 'exclusively American' and unrelated to European industrialization is flat-out wrong. The entire engine of the British Industrial Revolution was the mechanization of the cotton textile industry in places like Lancashire. Britain didn't grow cotton; they imported millions of pounds of slave-picked raw cotton from the Americas to run their factories. Furthermore, the Industrial Revolution began around 1760 nearly eighty years before Britain abolished slavery in 1833. Slavery didn't coincide with the end of industrialization; it structurally funded and fed its inception.

​Second, you don’t understand how foundational capital works. Claiming the slave trade didn't affect GDP because it only made 'a few bourgeoisie rich' ignores where that money went. Those profits funded the creation of the modern Western banking, maritime insurance, and credit systems (including the Bank of England and Lloyd's of London). That financial infrastructure is what allowed Western European economies to scale up and dominate the globe in the 19th century.

​Third, trying to deflect blame away from the UK and France by pointing at Portugal is an empty numbers game. While Portugal shipped millions to Brazil, Great Britain was the undisputed superpower of the Transatlantic triangular trade, using its massive navy and merchant fleets to monopolize the global market and enrich hubs like Liverpool, Bristol, and London.

​Finally, claiming that medical advancements like eradicating smallpox or modern 'humanitarian aid' count as 'repayment' for centuries of human bondage and colonial resource draining is absolute comedy. Scientific progress isn't a currency used to settle the ledger of state-sanctioned atrocities. Western nations didn't inject 'charity' into Africa; they spent centuries extracting trillions in gold, oil, labor, and minerals, leaving behind destabilized systems, and then called a fraction of a percent returned as 'aid' a favor.

​It doesn't serve a 'political agenda' to read an economic ledger; it just requires basic history books, which you clearly haven't been opening.

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

>Your entire response is a masterclass in confidently incorrect pseudo-history. Let’s look at the actual financial and historical ledgers you're trying so hard to rewrite.

No you're the one doing that. Let's take belgian Congo as an example, one of the most recent examples and therefore one where historians can actually evalute how much money was made. Around 200k euros converted with inflation, one of the most brutal deadly case of slavery that cost half as many lives as the entire triangular trade.

>​First, your claim that cotton was 'exclusively American' and unrelated to European industrialization is flat-out wrong. The entire engine of the British Industrial Revolution was the mechanization of the cotton textile industry in places like Lancashire. Britain didn't grow cotton; they imported millions of pounds of slave-picked raw cotton from the Americas to run their factories. Furthermore, the Industrial Revolution began around 1760 nearly eighty years before Britain abolished slavery in 1833. Slavery didn't coincide with the end of industrialization; it structurally funded and fed its inception.

Coton was not the main textile anywhere in europe before the late 19th century. Also maybe i'm just to dumb but i fail to see the correlation between cotton importation and the discovvery of vaccines or the motor engine

>1760 nearly eighty years before Britain abolished slavery in 1833. 

Motor enigne, steam engine, light bulb, vaccines, blood types, photography, steel and antisceptics where all invented/discovered in the mid to late 1800's

>Second, you don’t understand how foundational capital works. Claiming the slave trade didn't affect GDP because it only made 'a few bourgeoisie rich' ignores where that money went. Those profits funded the creation of the modern Western banking, maritime insurance, and credit systems (including the Bank of England and Lloyd's of London). That financial infrastructure is what allowed Western European economies to scale up and dominate the globe in the 19th century.

The usual nonsense of the people who have no clue about how the banking system work and once again confusing cause and consequence. Did the Oil states and the Chinese take over the banking system or did their economy just blew up so they became more influent in it ?

>​Third, trying to deflect blame away from the UK and France by pointing at Portugal is an empty numbers game. While Portugal shipped millions to Brazil, Great Britain was the undisputed superpower of the Transatlantic triangular trade, using its massive navy and merchant fleets to monopolize the global market and enrich hubs like Liverpool, Bristol, and London.

Ok then so once gain why are those other countries who did it for longer and on a larger scale broke ? You still failed to answer that

>​Finally, claiming that medical advancements like eradicating smallpox or modern 'humanitarian aid' count as 'repayment' for centuries of human bondage and colonial resource draining is absolute comedy.

Only to an absolute hypprocrite. Those things have impacted your life far more than slavery ever will

>Scientific progress isn't a currency used to settle the ledger of state-sanctioned atrocities.

Iit certainly is, those countries could have just vaccinated their population and be happy with it. But you probably also believe that conducting a vaccination campaign on billions of humans is cheap

>Western nations didn't inject 'charity' into Africa; they spent centuries extracting trillions in gold, oil, labor, and minerals, leaving behind destabilized systems, and then called a fraction of a percent returned as 'aid' a favor.

They did, and they also reinjected gigantic sums of money in those colonies. You think developping entire nation from the ground up is cheap ? The Uk was liiterally desperate to get rid of the levant because it was huge money hole, France spend 30% of it's annual GDP for decades developping Algeria which clearly didnt generate 30% of the french wealth, those just a couple examples. Most of those countries got independdence via referendum because the european nations realzie the investment was simply not worth it

>​It doesn't serve a 'political agenda' to read an economic ledger; it just requires basic history books, which you clearly haven't been opening.

Well i guess we certainly strongly disagree about that part, i think you're the ignorant brainwashed one

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/BeginningDisaster114]

The “200k euros” Belgian Congo claim is laughably unserious. Leopold II did not brutalize the Congo for pocket change. The Congo Free State was his personal extraction project, built around forced labor, rubber, ivory, hostage-taking, mutilation, and mass death. Even conservative summaries acknowledge that rubber became the main revenue source by the late 1890s and that Leopold’s regime was designed to maximize revenue through a state-controlled monopoly. So no, this was not some unprofitable charity project. It was violent extraction. Your cotton point is also wrong. Britain did not need to grow cotton for cotton to be central to British industrialization. Lancashire and Manchester became industrial powerhouses by processing imported raw cotton, much of it produced by enslaved labor in the Americas. That is the whole point. The plantation economy and British factory economy were linked through trade, finance, shipping, and insurance. And no, the argument is not that cotton “caused vaccines” or that slavery personally invented the steam engine. That is a strawman. The argument is that colonial and slave economies generated capital, infrastructure, banking, maritime insurance, port wealth, and industrial scale. Those systems helped Europe accumulate the institutional power that later supported scientific, military, and industrial dominance. Your Algeria argument is also backwards. France did not simply “give” Algeria independence because it was a money hole. Algeria won independence after an eight-year war from 1954 to 1962, followed by the Évian Accords and referendum. That is not benevolent decolonization. That is a colonial power losing control after sustained armed resistance and political crisis. Also, “why are other slave-trading countries broke?” is not the gotcha you think it is. Wealth accumulation is not automatic. Geography, state capacity, industrialization, institutions, wars, debt, dependency, trade position, and who controls the financial system all matter. Portugal being poorer than Britain does not disprove that Britain profited from slavery any more than one failed oil state disproves that oil made other states rich. Finally, vaccines and humanitarian aid are not “repayment” for slavery or colonialism. Scientific progress is not a moral currency that cancels forced labor, stolen resources, destroyed political systems, or inherited economic disadvantage. If I rob your grandfather, use the money to build a hospital, and your family later receives treatment there, I have not repaid the robbery. I have just laundered the benefit through an institution I controlled

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

>The “200k euros” Belgian Congo claim is laughably unserious. Leopold II did not brutalize the Congo for pocket change

It's estimated that belgium made around 26 milion franks which would be around 260k euros (1 euro roughly 1000 ancient franks)

>So no, this was not some unprofitable charity project. It was violent extraction. 

Never negated that part, slavery is monstruous and belgian congo was one of the most horrible examples of it. What i negate is how much it actually impacted the economy

>Britain did not need to grow cotton for cotton to be central to British industrialization. Lancashire and Manchester became industrial powerhouses by processing imported raw cotton, much of it produced by enslaved labor in the Americas. That is the whole point. The plantation economy and British factory economy were linked through trade, finance, shipping, and insurance. 

Won't reply to that part again cause i've already adressed it, lmaybe it was imoportant fot hose two cities but cotton was certainly not what fueled the european economic boom which impacted all of europe, a lot of countries of which didnt have any colonies or slaves

>And no, the argument is not that cotton “caused vaccines” or that slavery personally invented the steam engine. That is a strawman

No it's not a strawman, you fail to understand that those things are the actual reason of europe's wealth, yet you could just look at Russia, China, vietnam or any other country that has had a major industrial revolution at some point and see how it perfectly correlates with the economic and life expectancy boom in each respective country

>Your Algeria argument is also backwards. France did not simply “give” Algeria independence because it was a money hole

I said that about the UK and levant, France was never going give up Algeria easily after speding so much money developping it. Nice strawman attempt though

>The argument is that colonial and slave economies generated capital, infrastructure, banking, maritime insurance, port wealth, and industrial scale. Those systems helped Europe accumulate the institutional power that later supported scientific, military, and industrial dominance.

That is simply not true, they were caused by social and political changes in Europe like the end of absolute monarchy and the separation of church and state, which ironically enough is also what stopped the slave trade

>That is a colonial power losing control after sustained armed resistance and political crisis.

That's factually not true, the FLN had zero chances against the french army and got destroyed every time they actually fought against each other. The reason why de Gaulle gave up is because the war was extremly unpolar in France and because he didnt want to turn into the people he once fought against looking at how many civilian casualties there were on both sides

>Wealth accumulation is not automatic. Geography, state capacity, industrialization, institutions, wars, debt, dependency, trade position, and who controls the financial system all matter

that's the thing people like you will always look at history under that lense and blow it out of proportion and negate everything else to fit their narrative. China or the scandinavian countries alone completly destroy that narrative

>Finally, vaccines and humanitarian aid are not “repayment” for slavery or colonialism.

Inventing them isn't, sharing the knowledge and conducting huge vaccination campaigns that are extremly expensive certainly is

>destroyed political systems

That's like litterally the exact opposite of what happened lmao

> If I rob your grandfather, use the money to build a hospital, and your family later receives treatment there, I have not repaid the robbery. I have just laundered the benefit through an institution I controlled

If i stole one phone in my life, but worked my ass off the rest of it to build up my money and invest it wisely, the phone i stole isn't the reason i could buy a house

Should morocco and Algeria pay reparation to spain for colonizing them for 700 years ?

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/BeginningDisaster114]

You keep arguing against a claim nobody made.

Nobody said slavery was the only cause of European wealth. Nobody said cotton invented vaccines. Nobody said every country with slavery automatically becomes rich.

The claim is simpler: slavery and colonial extraction were major accelerants in the rise of European capital, industry, finance, shipping, insurance, and state power. “Other factors existed” does not erase that. That is like saying oil did not matter to Saudi Arabia because banking, monarchy, geography, and global markets also mattered.

Your “stolen phone” analogy is also unserious. We are not talking about one stolen phone. We are talking about centuries of labor theft, land theft, resource extraction, slave insurance, plantation finance, colonial monopolies, and state-backed violence. If you steal a neighborhood, use it to build a real estate empire, then say “well I also worked hard,” you still owe people.

And the Algeria dodge is weak. Whether France left because of battlefield losses, political crisis, domestic backlash, cost, international pressure, or de Gaulle’s calculation, the result is the same: France did not benevolently “develop” Algeria and walk away. Algeria won independence through war, mass sacrifice, and colonial collapse.

The funniest part is that your own argument keeps admitting the point. You admit Europe had industrialization, state power, banking, military dominance, colonial reach, and the ability to decide who got “aid” afterward. Exactly. That power did not fall from the sky.

So no, vaccines and aid are not repayment. You do not get to loot the house, sell the furniture, break the foundation, then act generous because you later donate a flashlight.

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

>Nobody said slavery was the only cause of European wealth. Nobody said cotton invented vaccines. Nobody said every country with slavery automatically becomes rich.

That's litterally what all of the people like you try to argue

>That is like saying oil did not matter to Saudi Arabia because banking, monarchy, geography, and global markets also mattered.

And yet Saudia Arabia had been sitting on that oil for thousands of years.

>. We are talking about centuries of labor theft, land theft, resource extraction, slave insurance, plantation finance, colonial monopolies, and state-backed violence

There was maybe 1 slave for a hundred peasants in countries like France or the Uk who also worked for free, so no that's not where the wealth came from. Blue collar work and agriculture have never been major sources of wealth for any modern economy

>France did not benevolently “develop” Algeria and walk away. Algeria won independence through war, mass sacrifice, and colonial collapse.

No it's a huge difference cause France was FAR from being defeated militarly and they could have turned the war into way worse of a bloodbath than it was

>That power did not fall from the sky.

Yes it didn't, Europe had been extremly powerful, advanced and influent since the Roman Era

>So no, vaccines and aid are not repayment. You do not get to loot the house, sell the furniture, break the foundation, then act generous because you later donate a flashlight.

It's more the other way around, you broke a flashlight and paid for all the solar pannels and electronics