Links between railways and slavery to be explored in new research project

[O L Leigh]

Oh my goodness, that is quite literally the far-right and antisemitic Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory!

Thanks for calling it out for what it is. I passed a very enlightening evening reading up on how those on the political right equate "wokery" with Cultural Marxism (even though they aren't the same thing) and how it feeds into right-wing conspiracy theories. It also explains why what looks like being a fairly innocuous piece of academic research is attracting such spirited, vociferous and politically motivated opposition.

I think that anyone currently using the term "woke" or any of it's derivatives without fully understanding it's meaning should have a read more widely to find out exactly what it means. My own personal view is also that anyone who is thinking that this is going to devalue the history of our nation or tarnish the achievements of our national heroes, or expect the findings to be rammed down people's throats and require the modern generation to apologise for events in the past really ought to calm down and get a proper perspective. Maybe try switching to decaff.

 

[Senex]

There's nothing wrong with that. What I object to is looking at those times through the prism of modern (and usually fairly left/"liberal" at that) morals. Even worse when that then morphs into a boring lecture about how we all need to apologise for stuff that happened centuries ago.
Just ridiculous, boring, irrelevant naval gazing.

I agree with that. "History" must always be open to re-examination as more evidence becomes available, as approaches change, and as different people look from differing perspectives at those areas where an "accepted" interpretation may have ruled for too long unchallenged. But there won't be a definitive right and wrong, and the view that is fashionable today may well not be tomorrow—just as yesterday's view could conceivably come back into favour in the future. Open debate supported by evidence should characterise the study of the past. Apologies, compensation, etc — no thank-you, because where does it stop? Should the Italians or the Scandinavisans compensate us for the Anglo-Saxons taken as slaves, should the French compensate us for William the *******'s Harrying of the North and the appalling oppression of the pre-Conquest population, do we owe something to the native inhabitants of those parts of the USA and Canada that we took over? The present generations are not responsible for what are by today's (perhaps transient) views as the sins of the past. The same questions arise over cultural items. I'd be quite content to see the Parthenon marbles go back to Athens or great Dutch paintings go back to the Netherlands as long as that also meant we should get back all those items of the British literary heritage that have found their way into North American collections. Or is it better just to say we are where we are and accept the situation?

 

[Ediswan]

Have you got a name for the programme or perhaps its compiler? I haven't found anything via "Search" on All4 yet.

Channel 5. "1000 Years A Slave". It is a short series. You might want to skip the underwater archaeology segments.

 

[43066]

But you cant have it both ways. You cant say the British are wonderful for abolishing the slave trade without saying the same British people also made a fortune out of the triangular trade.

It isn’t about having it both ways, it’s about being sensible and mature enough to realise that ideas and values change over time and there’s little point in judging our Victorian (and earlier) ancestors by 21st century values. Britain undoubtedly had an enormous role in (and made fortunes from) the transatlantic slave trade. We also spent more blood and treasure than pretty much any other country stamping it out. That nuance is lost on BLM etc. but of course that’s because they are interested in pushing their political agenda than actual facts or having a sensible debate.

It’s also worth noting that slavery has existed for about as long as humanity has - and indeed still continues in some parts of the world. Taking a snap shot of history from two hundred years ago while ignoring the Barbary coast slave trade, the Roman slave trade, slavery on the African interior seems a little irrational (but again political motivations…)

I would say Wilberforce IS lauded for his role as a leading abolitionist. However, there seems to be a group of people who are unable to acknowledge that there is a double sided coin in relation to slavery and don't want to look at the other side which is much more grubby. I don't understand why.

I was certainly taught about the grubbier aspects of the transatlantic slave trade at school in the 1990s. Abolitionism wasn’t mentioned is anything like as much depth.

While I would not be minded to apologise as I think it would be almost meaningless I think there is a debate to be had about that.

Well quite, it would be meaningless. Once things have passed out or living memory what is the point? Just as it would be meaningless for the Italians to apologise for the Romans invading the British Isles.

At some point people need to move on and stop blaming current societal issues on things that happened hundreds of years ago.

 

[Vespa]

With respect you are varying the point at issue

just to recap:

1. You said along lines of 'no one has mentioned that slaves were sold by their own people to westerners'
2. A response was posted citing several posts in the thread that mentioned just that
3. You said 'Too Long didn't read' ("TLDR")
4. My response as per your quote relates to that remark.

If you are not even going to read the thread you have commented on because it's too long, you are not going to find the things you say have not been said - as well as not come across as a very interested person.

My response was nothing to do with what might have happened at the LSE - if you don't like what some people in universities do (which is nothing to do with this railway related research) I suggest that is off topic and something for another thread.

Railway and slavery is part of the overall movement of wokism, cancel culture, historical revisionism.

 

[DarloRich]

Railway and slavery is part of the overall movement of wokism, cancel culture, historical revisionism.

this is nonsense. History is constantly revised. There isn't a fixed interpretation.

use of terms like "wokism" and "cancel culture" are just silly.

 

[Ianno87]

Railway and slavery is part of the overall movement of wokism, cancel culture, historical revisionism.

It's not revisionism if it a actually happened.

Glossing over or ignoring the more horrible parts of history as part of the narrative - *that's* revisionism.

 

[HST274]

I see that my original posting regarding this matter has been appropriate and altered.

Sadly though I think it is a reflection that our heritage is being undermined by those determined to reinterpret the past to suit a new political agenda.

There appears to be a desire to trash our historical heritage by finding links to slavery / exploitation / colonialism and in doing so tarnish its established reputation.

Much of the information can be dug out by anyone determined to do so - but there appears to be more and more effort into doing this and it is going to end badly.

Already a group of National Trust members have formed the "Restore Trust" to the return the trust to conserving historic properties and not focus on the latest trendy PC agendas.

The removal of a portrait of General Picton from the National Museum of Wales last week has stirred up emotions both pro and anti this action with I see Huw Edwards entering the debate and being censured for it.

Most of us just want our history left as it is yes it had its darker sides - and the information is there for people to find if they so care.

But there now appears to be a move to get the JCB's out and dig it up with a vengeance.

When it comes to slavery / colonialism / exploitation we need to look at what is going on today, not what happened in the past.

Unfortunately it carries on to this day in plain sight but in a different form and people chose to ignore it - surely that is what needs dealing with not what our predecessors did.

I must admit I feel very unhappy about our railway heritage being pulled into the current trend for political correctness and "wokeism".

What makes researching one thing more important or better than another? If they want to research these links surely it is better than ignoring it. Links such as these help us to remember that history is no black or white thing. George Washington may have founded America (with a lot of help) but it does no good to forget he was a slave owner. As much as you can make these people 'role models' as it were, it allows some terrible acts to be dulled to the point of acceptance. Likewise if discovering that the railways were first built solely by slaves is trashing the history, then is that not right to 'trash' it, that we remember lives lost and suffered rather than just saying railway's were great and whoever made it was great.

At what point is history fixed? Ten years after the events? Fifty? A hundred? At what point should we stop looking into events and re-examining them and adding new information to the mix as it comes to light?

A very important point. History is, plain and simple facts which can be interpreted into motives etc. If we find out that there are links that is a fact and we shouldn't ignore this for the sake of having a clear conscious about our ancestors. Furthermore as I said forgetting getting these people (slaves) would do no good and we should vilify any genuine evil people, not blame it all on 'context' which only goes so far to excuse things such as racism. (In medieval England for example a labourer could be forgiven for acting shocked/scared by a non white person in England as it was a far rarer thing to happen, whereas that is not the case for someone in the 20th century. Another example is Churchill. He should be glorified for all he did and he effectively ensured victory but that doesn't mean we should bury some of the worse stuff he did.)

 

[DarloRich]

Glossing over or ignoring the more horrible parts of history as part of the narrative - *that's* revisionism.

Spot on. Preserving the existing narrative seems more important than looking at all of the facts. As I keep saying I don't understand why. What is their to be scared about?

 

[6Gman]

There's nothing wrong with that. What I object to is looking at those times through the prism of modern (and usually fairly left/"liberal" at that) morals. Even worse when that then morphs into a boring lecture about how we all need to apologise for stuff that happened centuries ago.
Just ridiculous, boring, irrelevant naval gazing.

Is there any suggestion that this small research project is going to "lecture [us] about how we all need to apologise" ?

 

[Senex]

Channel 5. "1000 Years A Slave". It is a short series. You might want to skip the underwater archaeology segments.

Thanks — and for that advice too!

 

[WesternLancer]

Railway and slavery is part of the overall movement of wokism, cancel culture, historical revisionism.

I suggest you should just be honest and make it clear you don't think anyone should be talking about slavery, unless perhaps it's the UK's part in its legal abolition (but best not speak too much about that maybe for fear someone might ask too many questions).

But they are going to do this research - they have got the money from their (the university's) own resources - the criticism needs to happen when they have published it, not before they have even started doing it! But it might be longer then this thread....


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2021 ==

Thanks — and for that advice too!

Yes that's the one I was thinking of + I agree about the underwater archaeology bits!

 

[HST274]

Also no one has mentioned the African's role in capturing and selling slave to anyone willing to pay, they got rich from the proceed.

Firstly, this does not excuse anything whatsoever 'oh someone sold the drugs to me to why can't I sell it'. No customer, no seller- and let's consider what would happen to said seller's if they hadn't done this (not excusing it). They would have been slaves themselves. It is not like they wondered up to the Portuguese and started the trade. But back to the first point if someone does something bad, me doing a hell of a lot worse is not excused.

But also this is not relevant to what happened to the slaves afterwards. If they 'helped' build the railway you can't say, 'well these specific slaves were sold to us by other Africans', therefore as the latter benefited it doesn't matter what happens to the people being treated worse than animals'

 

[Vespa]

.

But also this is not relevant to what happened to the slaves afterwards. If they 'helped' build the railway you can't say, 'well these specific slaves were sold to us by other Africans', therefore as the latter benefited it doesn't matter what happens to the people being treated worse than animals'

Coming back to the original point, no slaves have ever been involved in building any part of Britain's railway, the first line Liverpool to Manchester was built in 1829, Slavery was abolished in 1807.

You do the maths.

 

[DarloRich]

Coming back to the original point, no slaves have ever been involved in building any part of Britain's railway, the first line Liverpool to Manchester was built in 1829, Slavery was abolished in 1807.

You do the maths.

I think the point of all this may have passed you by. The issue is the capital used to construct the railways. However, you must know this. Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.

Again: I don't understand what there is to be scared off in all this. What do you think will happen if this research shows that the Little Snoddlington and Great Barnford railway was built using capital provided by people who generated their wreath, in whole or in part, from the slave trade.

 

[O L Leigh]

Again: I don't understand what there is to be scared off in all this. What do you think will happen if this research shows that the Little Snoddlington and Great Barnford railway was built using capital provided by people who generated their wreath, in whole or in part, from the slave trade.

It’s because the idea of “woke” has become so ingrained in right-wing conspiracy theories that anything that might possibly be considered to be promoting minority narratives or interests is equated to Cultural Marxism and, therefore, anti-capitalist and threatening to what they consider to be “freedom of speech”, despite the fact that they are happy to try and deny such a freedom to anyone who they see as threatening the status quo. It’s not simply a case of opening their minds and considering the other side because they consider that the other side threatens the whole order of society. We’re beyond getting people interested in our own history because they have made it a highly politicised issue.

 

[DarloRich]

It’s because the idea of “woke” has become so ingrained in right-wing conspiracy theories that anything that might possibly be considered to be promoting minority narratives or interests is equated to Cultural Marxism and, therefore, anti-capitalist and threatening to what they consider to be “freedom of speech”, despite the fact that they are happy to try and deny such a freedom to anyone who they see as threatening the status quo. It’s not simply a case of opening their minds and considering the other side because they consider that the other side threatens the whole order of society. We’re beyond getting people interested in our own history because they have made it a highly politicised issue.

That is my view but better expressed. They will deny it of course!

PS they also don't seem to have much knowledge of what Marxism actually is! Just words a clever boy told them.

 

[stuu]

Why not just leave things as they are?

Sometimes progressive attitudes can be perceived as threatening by those with traditional views.

Because why should we? As a history teacher you should be well aware that our understanding changes as we learn more about the past. The same applies to slavery just as much as it does to say the recent discoveries at Pompeii. Just because more of it is hidden because people have chosen not to look doesn't mean we should leave things as they are

How is it possible that more understanding is a bad thing? What I don't understand is why anyone from any walk of life would feel threatened by someone pointing out that quite a lot of our present was built on a pretty horrible past? What threat does that make you feel? No one is going to take away your property or anything. What are you so scared of?

 

[Vespa]

I think the point of all this may have passed you by. The issue is the capital used to construct the railways. However, you must know this. Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.

Again: I don't understand what there is to be scared off in all this. What do you think will happen if this research shows that the Little Snoddlington and Great Barnford railway was built using capital provided by people who generated their wreath, in whole or in part, from the slave trade.

Since 1807 the idea of investing in slave trading enterprises is banned.

 

[Ianno87]

Since 1807 the idea of investing in slave trading enterprises is banned.

But the wealth generated before then didn't mysteriously evaporate. Those wealthy people (or their descendents) potentially became early railway investors.

 

[Vespa]

PS they also don't seem to have much knowledge of what Marxism actually is! Just words a clever boy told them.

No need to be condescending, its insulting.

I have grown up in the cold war and have visited communist countries, I know what Marxism is and how it works in practice, the Berlin Wall fell down 32 years ago and I don't think you're old enough to remember it and why people rebelled against it.

Communism, Marxism or Leninism whichever way it's called is applied the same way, confiscating private property for use if the state, supresssion of individial freedom, collectivisation of industry, order maintained by secret police with wide ranging arbitrary power including detention without charge for as long as they wish, no right of travel in case you spread or learn radical thoughts which is threat to a one party dictatorship, history is changed to suit a political ideology.


Radical left wing ideology is back in fashion because university student haven't experienced communism and its negative effect.

You should read the Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell, Animal Farm explains the hypocrisy of communism well, 1984 is about a dystopian future dominated by a sinister hyper survilliance system, creating control through paranoia, history is changed at a stroke a pen, you become a non person, its very dark and very educational.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2021 ==

But the wealth generated before then didn't mysteriously evaporate. Those wealthy people (or their descendents) potentially became early railway investors.

what is relevance of that ? Its outside the scope of the question, all slave investments have been devested since abolition, the descendent cannot be held responsible for that in 1829 and much as today, I'm not responsible for what happened in 1689 or 1807, I'm only responsible for my particular lifetime.

 

[O L Leigh]

I also grew up during the Cold War and I read Animal Farm as teenager. What I don’t see is how a piece of academic research is leading us down the road towards Marxism unless looked at through the prism of right-wing conspiracy theory.

 

[Ianno87]

what is relevance of that ? Its outside the scope of the question, all slave investments have been devested since abolition, the descendent cannot be held responsible for that in 1829 and much as today, I'm not responsible for what happened in 1689 or 1807, I'm only responsible for my particular lifetime.

You have deeply misunderstood.

The research is to establish whether or not there a verifiable connection, it is not seeking to apportion responsibility (historical research never seeks to do that).

 

[DarloRich]

I have grown up in the cold war and have visited communist countries, I know what Marxism is and how it works in practice, the Berlin Wall fell down 32 years ago and I don't think you're old enough to remember it and why people rebelled against it.

Communism, Marxism or Leninism whichever way it's called is applied the same way, confiscating private property for use if the state, supresssion of individial freedom, collectivisation of industry, order maintained by secret police with wide ranging arbitrary power including detention without charge for as long as they wish, no right of travel in case you spread or learn radical thoughts which is threat to a one party dictatorship, history is changed to suit a political ideology.


Radical left wing ideology is back in fashion because university student haven't experienced communism and its negative effect.

You should read the Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell, Animal Farm explains the hypocrisy of communism well, 1984 is about a dystopian future dominated by a sinister hyper survilliance system, creating control through paranoia, history is changed at a stroke a pen, you become a non person, its very dark and very educational.

Thanks for the lecture. I maintain you have no idea what Marxism is. It is just a word that you can throw about to try and explain your stance. Can you please try and answer the question: What are you scared about and what do you think will happen as a result of this research?

PS: I am old enough to recall the fall of communism quite clearly. I have also read many of works of Orwell including Animal Farm. I can see a copy on my book case as I write.

What I don’t see is how a piece of academic research is leading us down the road towards Marxism unless looked at through the prism of right-wing conspiracy theory.

Spot on. It is nonsense.

 

[stuu]

Communism, Marxism or Leninism whichever way it's called is applied the same way, confiscating private property for use if the state, supresssion of individial freedom, collectivisation of industry, order maintained by secret police with wide ranging arbitrary power including detention without charge for as long as they wish, no right of travel in case you spread or learn radical thoughts which is threat to a one party dictatorship, history is changed to suit a political ideology.


Radical left wing ideology is back in fashion because university student haven't experienced communism and its negative effect.

Where is this radical left wing thinking? Apart from in the minds of loons on YouTube? I have seen precious little demand for the collective ownership of the commanding heights of the economy.

Your description of Marxism/communism is what it became, which is very different from what was envisaged by Marx. Das Kapital doesn't contain any reference to secret police or gulags.

I really don't see what researching social history has to do with Marxism, and why the dislike in general of researching history? Should we abolish history studies altogether? Or just the bits you don't like?

 

[O L Leigh]

Since 1807 the idea of investing in slave trading enterprises is banned.

I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence by being condescending or treating anyone here as stupid. But I do have to point out that your definition is too narrow.

Slavery may have ended in Britain before the railway age, but it had not in America or elsewhere. The raw material for the cotton mills of the north came largely from territories where slavery formed a large part of the production process, as it did for other commodities such as sugar. This also explains why the Liverpool-Manchester corridor became so important as a route for transportation and why it became the first intercity rail route. The sheet size of the consignments coming in as raw materials and going out as finished products to all corners of the empire drove first the development of the canals and then later the railways. Although slave ownership and directly investing in the trade was banned, Britain and her industrialists were still benefitting materially from the enslavement of people, the legacy of which we still enjoy today.

 

[Vespa]

You have deeply misunderstood.

The research is to establish whether or not there a verifiable connection, it is not seeking to apportion responsibility (historical research never seeks to do that).

That's the impression I'm getting, what's the point of researching if not to apportion blame, what is the end game ?

 

[O L Leigh]

That's the impression I'm getting, what's the point of researching if not to apportion blame, what is the end game ?

To educate and inform so that the individual can decide for themselves what their reaction will be. It will be there to read if you’re interested or to ignore if you’re not. Looking for an end-game is just paranoia.

 

[Vespa]

I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence by being condescending or treating anyone here as stupid. But I do have to point out that your definition is too narrow.

Slavery may have ended in Britain before the railway age, but it had not in America or elsewhere. The raw material for the cotton mills of the north came largely from territories where slavery formed a large part of the production process, as it did for other commodities such as sugar. This also explains why the Liverpool-Manchester corridor became so important as a route for transportation and why it became the first intercity rail route. The sheet size of the consignments coming in as raw materials and going out as finished products to all corners of the empire drove first the development of the canals and then later the railways. Although slave ownership and directly investing in the trade was banned, Britain and her industrialists were still benefitting materially from the enslavement of people, the legacy of which we still enjoy today.

I'm sorry but I was under the impression that the scope of the question is UK specific after all its a .co.uk site, no reference was made about international railways.

Is it a case if "Question Creep" now ?

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm sorry but I was under the impression that the scope of the question is UK specific after all its a .co.uk site, no reference was made about international railways.

Is it a case if "Question Creep" now ?

No. I think you didn’t read the brief fully. The question is about whether or not there was any inter-relationship between the railways and slavery, not slavery in Britain. That the site has a .uk domain simply reflects it's geographical location and does not limit it’s scope.