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

[DarloRich]

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

I fear you are not being serious now.

 

[Vespa]

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.

The problem I have with is Woke activist will use this and weaponise it, people have been threatened for holding a view thatopposes theirs, University debating societies have banned speakers that hold contrary views, not quite an open society isn't it ?

Recently John Cleese has just "cancelled" himself because another potential speaker who dressed up as Hitler was banned from attending.

The hypocrisy of woke desire for open debate and review of history is exposed by supression of other views, this is how Communist dictatorships operate.

 

[O L Leigh]

The hypocrisy of woke desire for open debate and review of history is exposed by supression of other views, this is how Communist dictatorships operate.

And yet the alternative is the suppression of other narratives and the disenfranchisement of groups within our society. Suppressing research like this just because it might be used in one way or another is just as big a denial of freedom of speech as banning people who have unpopular right-wing views as you describe.

But neither is the answer. You cannot decry the hypocrisy of “wokeism” without recognising the hypocrisy in the alternative view. Frankly both sides are as bad as each other once you get out onto the extremes. As I’ve been saying for days now, the answer is to have an open discourse and to be brave enough to give equal credence to other narratives, even where this might be uncomfortable.

If you feel as though you’re being marginalised and pushed to the extremes, then you should understand that standing in opposition to projects such as this will only marginalise those who wish to see it completed, and in that way you push them to the extremes too. You don’t solve the problem this way. You become part of the problem.

Let’s be very clear about this. This is political whether we like it or not. The far-right would like us to be questioning projects such as this and opposing them because they do not want there to be consensus. It suits their aims to fracture and polarise society along racial, societal and historical lines; for there to be a “them” and an “us”.

The far-left maybe do want to reassess our society*, but not along Marxist lines. That is just the paranoid fantasy of the far-right which they use to scare and mobilise people to opposition.

**EDIT**

* I feel I should expand on what I mean by this to ensure that I'm totally clear. I don't want anyone to be under any impression that I subscribe to the right-wing conspiracy theories.

The history of our nation and our people has been written largely from the perspective of the Anglo-Saxon colonial. The issue is that this narrative no longer represents everyone who identifies as British, as a significant proportion of the population is descended from enslaved peoples or from countries that were once subject to British colonial rule. It is perhaps not terribly surprising that they fail to identify with the traditional historical narrative as they do not necessarily view the Anglo-Saxon colonial as having been a good thing. Their narratives are different and feed into our established history in different ways.

It is changes to our collective narrative that I believe they are seeking, and an acknowledgement that their stories are just as valid as ours and help give a greater depth and understanding to what it is to be British today. That's not the same as re-writing history or cancelling aspects of our past, but to have their viewpoints added to our own and given equal weight.

 

[WesternLancer]

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.

I suspect you have hit the nail on the head here.

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

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.

So is this the nub of it for you @Vespa ? It's just that I've not noticed any part of this thread or the research proposal suggesting that you or me or anyone today is responsible for what happened in the past before our lifetimes

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

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 ?

The link I posted to the research at least makes it clear it is international in scope.

I'll copy an extract

The year of funding will stimulate research, build networks, and increase awareness of the links between slavery, steam power and the development of railways in Europe and the colonies.

Yet you clearly state "no reference was made about international railways" yet that reference is right up there at the start of the press release.

 

[O L Leigh]

Please, this is a serious discussion about an issue that we're only really seeing a tiny corner of. I know I'm not a mod, but please can we not goad each other.

 

[HST274]

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

Why do people care that the Battle of Crecy was in 1346 and research into why Ethelred was called the unready? Because they are interested, because we want to know where we came from and perhaps remember with admiration those who helped us and remember with sorrow those who were lost because of humanities evil side.

And also how do you apportion the blame. I hardly doubt we will hang draw and quarter a slave owners great great great great nephew just because he might of benefited from his ancestors deeds. If anything I would be intrigued and perhaps do more research into my family, and maybe spare a thought for those people my relative harmed, though not apologise directly to their ancestors that may be alive. I do think that does little good and is not necessary.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

Slave trading was abolished in 1807 in the British Empire.
Slave owning continued until the abolition act of 1833, with a 6-year time limit to free the slaves (with some exceptions), and pay the owners compensation.
You are probably right about no slaves being used to build UK railways, but the capital to build them certainly came from private wealth earned from such sources.

 

[6Gman]

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

To establish historical accuracy?

Why do you have this idea that the purpose of researching history is to "apportion blame"?

 

[Vespa]

To establish historical accuracy?

Why do you have this idea that the purpose of researching history is to "apportion blame"?

Because of the recent tumbling down of statues of alleged or actual slave owners ? Removing names from institutions and universities.

There is a trend of university students trying to outdo each other in virtue signalling and proclaiming it on social media.

Digging up dirt is divisive and polarising.

 

[6Gman]

Slave trading was abolished in 1807 in the British Empire.
Slave owning continued until the abolition act of 1833, with a 6-year time limit to free the slaves (with some exceptions), and pay the owners compensation.
You are probably right about no slaves being used to build UK railways, but the capital to build them certainly came from private wealth earned from such sources.

And the compensation act was passed late in 1837 so money was paid out to former slave owners at a time when many railway companies were being financed. (Because some opted for the option of undated government bonds there were people receiving an income from their slave ownership for decades afterwards.)

I say this in the interests of historical accuracy not because I want somebody's 5xgreat grandchild to be "cancelled" (whatever that means in this context. Which I suspect is nothing.)

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

Because of the recent tumbling down of statues of alleged or actual slave owners ? Removing names from institutions and universities.

There is a trend of university students trying to outdo each other in virtue signalling and proclaiming it on social media.

Digging up dirt is divisive and polarising.

You seem to be confusing research with activism.

Or are you suggesting that if somebody finds out that the Liskeard & Looe Railway was partly funded by slave income "students" are going to descend on Coombe Junction to rip up the tracks?

 

[Vespa]

You seem to be confusing research with activism.

Or are you suggesting that if somebody finds out that the Liskeard & Looe Railway was partly funded by slave income "students" are going to descend on Coombe Junction to rip up the tracks?

Well they did pull down down statues and removed names, it's not beyond the realm of possibility, once the low hanging fruits have been "cancelled" they will be looking for other targets maybe even turn on each other.

"Revolution will eat its own children" comes to mind.

 

[Ianno87]

Well they did pull down down statues and removed names, it's not beyond the realm of possibility, oncextye k ow hanging fruits have been "cancelled" they will be looking for other targets maybe even turn on each other.

"Revolution will eat its own children" comes to mind.

Perhaps because people who treated other human beings as personal property or animals aren't worth glorifying?

 

[Vespa]

Perhaps because people who treated other human beings as personal property or animals aren't worth glorifying?

As opposed to benefactoring universities with bursaries and towns with public works.

You're applying 21st century standard to a somebody from the 16th, 17th, 18th century who operates from a different culture.

 

[Ianno87]

As opposed to benefactoring universities with bursaries and towns with public works.

With dirty, immorally-obtained money.

You're applying 21st century standard to a somebody from the 16th, 17th, 18th century who operates from a different culture.

And that's bad because.....? Times move on as you say - so do the people we need to commemorate rightly.

 

[HST274]

As I said earlier, judging a medieval person for the different treatment of a so called 'moor' is acceptable as it is a new site. The industrial slavery of millions cannot be ignored through 'context'

 

[Vespa]

With dirty, immorally-obtained money.



And that's bad because.....? Times move on as you say - so do the people we need to commemorate rightly.

And the mask slips.....

Its all about woke.

 

[WesternLancer]

And the mask slips.....

Its all about woke.

what is "woke" about that statement? Genuine question.
Many people in the period concerned - eg 18th Century, regarded money earned from slavery as immoral (or dirty to use modern parlance I guess). Some of them are household names even today - Josiah Wedgwood for example.

 

[stuu]

And the mask slips.....

Its all about woke.

What does woke even mean, in your opinion?

Recognising that segments of society have been very poorly treated and this needs to change shouldn't make anyone feel threatened. Researching social history is an entirely valid academic exercise, whether it be slavery or what early Saxon agriculture was, it's all our history. Attempting to sweep bits under the carpet because of some ludicrous conspiracy theory seems even more irrational

 

[Vespa]

Applying a 21st century standard to an 18th century situation is pointless, all participants have long since passed away.

Be glad it was abolished.

 

[6Gman]

As opposed to benefactoring universities with bursaries and towns with public works.

You're applying 21st century standard to a somebody from the 16th, 17th, 18th century who operates from a different culture.

No, we really aren't.

We are defending the right of university historians to study whatever field of research they feel is appropriate, even if it might (might) unearth some uncomfortable facts.

We are not toppling statues, or renaming anything.

And as far as "cancel culture" is concerned isn't that more appropriately applied to people who want to cancel this research project?

 

[DerekC]

Recently John Cleese has just "cancelled" himself because another potential speaker who dressed up as Hitler was banned from attending.

John Cleese just happens to have landed a new deal for a Channel 4 TV show called Cancel Me. Could this just possibly be a publicity stunt, we wonders?

I dared to suggest to someone the other day (in what had been up to then a light-hearted conversation) that Francis Drake, whilst undoubtedly a hero, was also a pirate and got accused of being "woke". What is "woke" anyway? I read the definition upthread about Marxism which is obvious nonsense. It seems to be used by the people who are content with their rose-coloured picture of Britain's history, about anyone who suggests any kind of different perspective.

 

[O L Leigh]

Its all about woke.

…which is a right-wing construct tenuously tied into a theory that holds no water, intended to scare us away from considering anything outside of the established Anglo-Saxon colonial narrative which results in a fractured society. Yes, this has been explained already.

 

[XAM2175]

And yet the alternative is the suppression of other narratives and the disenfranchisement of groups within our society. Suppressing research like this just because it might be used in one way or another is just as big a denial of freedom of speech as banning people who have unpopular right-wing views as you describe.

But neither is the answer. You cannot decry the hypocrisy of “wokeism” without recognising the hypocrisy in the alternative view. Frankly both sides are as bad as each other once you get out onto the extremes. As I’ve been saying for days now, the answer is to have an open discourse and to be brave enough to give equal credence to other narratives, even where this might be uncomfortable.

If you feel as though you’re being marginalised and pushed to the extremes, then you should understand that standing in opposition to projects such as this will only marginalise those who wish to see it completed, and in that way you push them to the extremes too. You don’t solve the problem this way. You become part of the problem.

Let’s be very clear about this. This is political whether we like it or not. The far-right would like us to be questioning projects such as this and opposing them because they do not want there to be consensus. It suits their aims to fracture and polarise society along racial, societal and historical lines; for there to be a “them” and an “us”.

The far-left maybe do want to reassess our society*, but not along Marxist lines. That is just the paranoid fantasy of the far-right which they use to scare and mobilise people to opposition.

**EDIT**

* I feel I should expand on what I mean by this to ensure that I'm totally clear. I don't want anyone to be under any impression that I subscribe to the right-wing conspiracy theories.

The history of our nation and our people has been written largely from the perspective of the Anglo-Saxon colonial. The issue is that this narrative no longer represents everyone who identifies as British, as a significant proportion of the population is descended from enslaved peoples or from countries that were once subject to British colonial rule. It is perhaps not terribly surprising that they fail to identify with the traditional historical narrative as they do not necessarily view the Anglo-Saxon colonial as having been a good thing. Their narratives are different and feed into our established history in different ways.

It is changes to our collective narrative that I believe they are seeking, and an acknowledgement that their stories are just as valid as ours and help give a greater depth and understanding to what it is to be British today. That's not the same as re-writing history or cancelling aspects of our past, but to have their viewpoints added to our own and given equal weight.

Thank you.

 

[43066]

the answer is to have an open discourse and to be brave enough to give equal credence to other narratives, even where this might be uncomfortable.

Exactly which narratives do you feel aren’t being given equal credence?

If anyone is in any doubt as to why the Tories have a thumping majority after over ten years in power, it’s this kind of nonsense.

Keep going gents.

 

[yorkie]

...What is "woke" anyway? ...

It's an informal term originating in the US which means different things to different people.

There is no universal agreement on what the term means and never will be; it was originally used in the US to mean 'awareness of injustice' but it has since gained negative connotations as the term has been used to describe extremist behaviour by far left extremists and the term is often used in a derogatory manner. When I hear the term, it is generally used negatively to describe behaviour of people when trying to cancel something or complain about something (such as the LNER announcement fiasco).

It is probably best to avoid the use of the term, as people on different 'sides' will have completely different ideas as to what the term means; if you asked 10 people, you would probably get 10 different answers. It is a divisive matter, that's for sure.

 

[stuu]

Exactly which narratives do you feel aren’t being given equal credence?

If anyone is in any doubt as to why the Tories have a thumping majority after over ten years in power, it’s this kind of nonsense.

Keep going gents.

Nonsense, the Tory election victory was down to Brexit and Corbyn's unpopularity, coupled with the ludicrous electoral system - 57% of votes cast were not for the Tories, but they have a majority. Not very democratic is it?

 

[ainsworth74]

Exactly which narratives do you feel aren’t being given equal credence?

The one that several members in this thread seem to be extremely keen to avoid having any research done about?

 

[eldomtom2]

The fundamental issue with such a project is that academics, especially historians, are heavily biased in one political direction. For example, to take an example away from issues of "wokeness", they will have particular views on trade and capitalism which will influence they way they feel companies should have acted in the era of Empire.

For an interesting example of how such projects can contain hidden assumptions, there was recently an excoriation from a museum curator of locomotive manufacturers of them selling locomotives to colonies - never mind that the issue of boycotts is still a controversial one even if you just talk about the effectiveness of the act and not who you're acting against. What is also interesting is that the presented positive influence of the manufacturers was that they provided good jobs - again, reflecting specific political views.

Furthermore, one could also question the research subject in the first place. By focusing on "slavery and colonialism" the intent appears less to examine the global context of British railways and more to examine them for perceived taint.

 

[43066]

Nonsense, the Tory election victory was down to Brexit and Corbyn's unpopularity, coupled with the ludicrous electoral system - 57% of votes cast were not for the Tories, but they have a majority. Not very democratic is it?

Rather than dismissing a view you don’t agree with as “nonsense” perhaps you should try asking a few Tory voters - and traditional Labour voters for that matter - about what they think of wokeism. Perhaps if the Labour Party asked same question they’d be doing rather better in the polls!

The endless obsession with identity politics cuts little ice with most ordinary right thinking people who frankly have much bigger things to worry about than using correct pronouns and hand wringing about statues and what happened two hundred years ago.

We had a referendum on electoral reform a few years ago and the decision was taken to stick with the existing system, that’s just how democracy works I’m afraid. I somehow doubt you’d be complaining about FPTP if Labour had a majority.

The one that several members in this thread seem to be extremely keen to avoid having any research done about?

As per the comments up thread, we all know slavery happened and that many Victorian industrialists were involved. What useful purpose does this kind of research actually have? And exactly who benefits from it? It’s interesting that for the all the obsessing about western colonialism in the past we hear little about things that are actually happening now: China’s current check book colonialism of African countries, modern slavery in the Middle East etc.

The fundamental issue with such a project is that academics, especially historians, are heavily biased in one political direction. For example, to take an example away from issues of "wokeness", they will have particular views on trade and capitalism which will influence they way they feel companies should have acted in the era of Empire.

For an interesting example of how such projects can contain hidden assumptions, there was recently an excoriation from a museum curator of locomotive manufacturers of them selling locomotives to colonies - never mind that the issue of boycotts is still a controversial one even if you just talk about the effectiveness of the act and not who you're acting against. What is also interesting is that the presented positive influence of the manufacturers was that they provided good jobs - again, reflecting specific political views.

Furthermore, one could also question the research subject in the first place. By focusing on "slavery and colonialism" the intent appears less to examine the global context of British railways and more to examine them for perceived taint.

Agreed. There is a clear left wing bias to much of this research. As I said upthread, BLM itself a hard left anti capitalist organisation. That isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s clearly displayed in their own words if you know where to look for it. From the BLM U.K. gofundme page:

Donate to UKBLM FUND, organized by UKBLM Fund

Who we are. Black Lives Matter UK (BLMUK) is a coalition of black activists and organisers across the UK. We’v… UKBLM Fund needs your support for UKBLM FUND

www.gofundme.com

We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world. We build deep relationships across the diaspora and strategise to challenge the rise of the authoritarian right-wing across the world, from Brazil to Britain.

 

[WesternLancer]

The fundamental issue with such a project is that academics, especially historians, are heavily biased in one political direction. For example, to take an example away from issues of "wokeness", they will have particular views on trade and capitalism which will influence they way they feel companies should have acted in the era of Empire.

For an interesting example of how such projects can contain hidden assumptions, there was recently an excoriation from a museum curator of locomotive manufacturers of them selling locomotives to colonies - never mind that the issue of boycotts is still a controversial one even if you just talk about the effectiveness of the act and not who you're acting against. What is also interesting is that the presented positive influence of the manufacturers was that they provided good jobs - again, reflecting specific political views.

Furthermore, one could also question the research subject in the first place. By focusing on "slavery and colonialism" the intent appears less to examine the global context of British railways and more to examine them for perceived taint.

So you mean all academics (and esp historians) are left wing?

You obviously didn't meet my politics professor who was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher, or Prof Patrick Minford. As to historians, plenty of them I have encountered who were in no sense left wing.