Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Oexmelin]

I prefer to throw out what about the coastal Africans.

And what does that do?

[Sheilbh]

I prefer to throw out what about the coastal Africans.

I mentioned it earlier but I'd really recommend Toby Green's A Fistful of Shells on that. A little dry as basically economic history but very interesting.

I'd note that Toby Green is on the commission revising British history curriculum which seems good. Although covid seems to have radicalised him and while he makes some good points on inequality and state of emergency response to covid, he seems to have fully gone down an Agamben-ish biopolitics rabbit hole

[Admiral Yi]

And what does that do?

It points out that the modern discussion of the crime of slavery more resembles a liability/tort shakedown than a moral analysis.

[Duque de Bragança]

No idea how things are in Ibieria. It is worth noting however that in a Anglo context "but what about the Muslims!" is a common bit of whataboutery far right folk love throwing out whenever slavery is discussed.

I prefer to throw out what about the coastal Africans.

In the Portuguese case, those coastal Africans were often partially Portuguese, mixed ascendancy,  the lançados, with varying degrees over time, going native again after a while in some cases, again why I don't think the UK parallel experience applies.

[Duque de Bragança]

I think what Duque is getting at is that participation in the slave trade is not of the same perceived cultural significance in Portugal/Spain as it is in the US and the UK. I guess we can argue about the reasons for this -I would guess its a combination of not facing this part of their past on a national level and the fact that they have shed a lot of the after-effects of it by losing their American colonies- but simply this argument here on its own seems to prove him right about the different perceptions of slavery.

All right, that's helpful, thanks.

However, here (Portugal) and there (colonies) changed over the centuries, with Brazil being more than just a colony and being on the same level as Portugal for a while, the United Kingdom/Reino Unido de Portugal, Brasil and Algarves, between 1808 and 1822.

Pombal's law of 1761 stating that any black slave arriving to a Portuguese mainland port was to be freed was not applied in Brazil, unsurprisingly.
Another law in 1773, also freed grand-grand children of slaves in the mainland. There had been some in the south, in the Alentejo latifundia, another difference with the UK and why I also do no agree with the UK parallel experience.

After independence, historians, quoted in oft-used school textbooks, even claimed Brazil was more profitable for Portugal as a destination for Portuguese emigration, than as a colony.

As a matter of fact, relations improved quickly between Portugal and Brazil, unlike Spanish America, helped by the fact there was a Bragança on the imperial throne until 1889.

The Portuguese mainland did not benefit that much from the slave trade, unlike the UK which benefited also from the slave trade between Portuguese Africa and Brazil even before the independence (aided by GB), albeit slavers had more influence since the country was poorer (a negative not a positive), but even that influence was limited geographically to Lisbon, mostly.
Lisbon had trouble in reigning the settlers/bandeirantes/slavers and did not really try until the 19th century.

Brazil would not have been possible without the slave trade, obviously.

Angola and the rest of African possessions were depending on Brazil, as their main market for slaves, with the Portuguese settlers from Brazil helping it andn participating in the the coastal settlements threatened by the Dutch in the 17th century, themselves also occupying part of Brazil.

So more complex than just a mental compartimentalisation, here and there in the colonies.
Following the independence, slaver networks remained, even after the ban, for a while (black market) but since the jewel of the crown was gone, the African possessions needed another orientation, focussing again on African products, as in the beginning, other slaves.

The Portuguese mainland actually experienced a decline in population from the spices period decline in the late 16th century.

As a matter of fact, Salazar, well after the slave trade period, maintained there was one and only Portugal from Minho To East Timor, in a last-ditch attempt to avoid decolonisation.

[Oexmelin]

It points out that the modern discussion of the crime of slavery more resembles a liability/tort shakedown than a moral analysis.

And then what?

[Sheilbh]

It points out that the modern discussion of the crime of slavery more resembles a liability/tort shakedown than a moral analysis.

Isn't that sort of true of most history? It is, especailly more popular history, quite often about causation and assigning responsibility/assessing contingency plus a bit on consequences (normally the sales pitch - why this matters today it's either consequences or analogy). I can't think of any history I've read that I'd describe as moral analysis (possibly because I can't imagine anything I'd like to read less ).

[Josquius]

No idea how things are in Ibieria. It is worth noting however that in a Anglo context "but what about the Muslims!" is a common bit of whataboutery far right folk love throwing out whenever slavery is discussed.

I prefer to throw out what about the coastal Africans.

Also fairly common though even less worthy a point. It's like pointing out Hitler didn't actually kill any Jews.

[Razgovory]

No idea how things are in Ibieria. It is worth noting however that in a Anglo context "but what about the Muslims!" is a common bit of whataboutery far right folk love throwing out whenever slavery is discussed.

I prefer to throw out what about the coastal Africans.

Also fairly common though even less worthy a point. It's like pointing out Hitler didn't actually kill any Jews.

You are so weird sometimes.

[Admiral Yi]

And then what?

I give up.  Give me a clue.

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't that sort of true of most history? It is, especailly more popular history, quite often about causation and assigning responsibility/assessing contingency plus a bit on consequences (normally the sales pitch - why this matters today it's either consequences or analogy). I can't think of any history I've read that I'd describe as moral analysis (possibly because I can't imagine anything I'd like to read less ).

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point.

[Admiral Yi]

Also fairly common though even less worthy a point. It's like pointing out Hitler didn't actually kill any Jews.

Your analogy baffles me.

I would have thought a closer Hitler analogy would be something like pointing out Austrians were overrepresented in concentration camp staff and the SS.

[HVC]

Its the flip side of the argument you and he had about oil companies and who shares more blame, the supplier or the buyer

[Admiral Yi]

Its the flip side of the argument you and he had about oil companies and who shares more blame, the supplier or the buyer

I had the same thought. 

[Josquius]

True. It is kind of similar. But then it backs my point up in that discussion that there's no one size fits all rule, that power imbalances matter deeply.

Sure Europeans weren't stomping around Africa with nets to capture people. But nobody believes that. Everybody knows they bought the slaves from African ports where there were people only too happy to meet the demand.
It doesn't make things any nicer for the slaves that the first chain in their new shitty life was African.
Considering the way societies were fundamentally rebuilt to meet the demand it makes things quite a bit worse for them even (hey, theres another oil parallel).

Also fairly common though even less worthy a point. It's like pointing out Hitler didn't actually kill any Jews.

Your analogy baffles me.

I would have thought a closer Hitler analogy would be something like pointing out Austrians were overrepresented in concentration camp staff and the SS.

I don't get how that makes sense.