Britain’s colonial civilisational legacy, often condoned, is tainted by major actions against humanity, which clamour down the ages. These include the New World slave trade, which principled Englishmen such as William Wilberforce ended through their magnificent emancipation ‘jihad.’
However, other programs continued, causing wholesale devastation, such as Britain’s facilitation following the ignoble Balfour Declaration, during its Trusteeship of Palestine, for Zionists to establish a homeland, not in Britain, but on predominantly Palestinian-owned land; and Britain’s covert support in helping build Israel’s nuclear WMD capability. Israel’s existence continues to destabilise the Middle East.
Much of Britain’s industrial growth was related to slave-sourced products – sugar, cotton and tobacco.
Following the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the Government raised £20m (£300bn today) to compensate slave-owners for emancipating slaves. The British Public were surprised to learn this loan was only finally paid-off in 2015.
Between the 1600s and 1807, Britain became a pre-eminent trader of African slaves surpassing all Europeans. British participation began in 1573 with support and investment by Elizabeth I.
Serfdom, like slavery but less onerous, was imposed on Britons by Norman Vikings. Britain continued in this and imperial Roman tradition – a source of ‘civilisational’ inspiration – to deal in slaves.
“Nothing in human history compares with the Atlantic Slave Trade (1441-1840) in its magnitude, cruelty or sustained brutality.”
Over 10 million Africans slaves were shipped to the Americas. Three million died during their capture and march to the coast and from inhumane conditions aboard slave ships.
“In the British colonies the slaves were treated as non-human: they were ‘chattels’, to be worked to death as it was cheaper to purchase another slave than to keep one alive. … There was no opprobrium attached to rape, torture, or beating your slaves to death. The enslaved in the British colonies had no legal rights.”
Roman Catholics reportedly treated slaves better as humans compared to British Protestants who forbade them church attendance and justified slavery and their atrocities by claiming they were barbaric savages.
Twenty percent of American slaves were Muslims.
Online Etymology Dictionary proffers the origin of the word ‘slaves’ to the Latin word sclavus, which was applied to Slavs enslaved from defeats suffered from the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto I.
Muslim Moors enslaved by the Portuguese were the first West African slaves in this ‘nefarious trade.’
The Portuguese however, found this practice dangerous. Europeans found it easier to arm degenerate chiefs from states such as the Asante, Dahomey, Congo, Angola, who enslaved neighbours.
Muslim chiefs did not play significant roles.
Differing from traditional slavery, the European-backed approach promoted perpetual warfare, surprise raids and kidnapping of free natives.
Devastating impacts on West African societies continue until today.
Professor Nathan Nunn of Harvard University found that countries which are today Africa’s poorest are also those from which the most slaves were taken.
Without prisons in many other traditional societies, slave-hood securitised criminals or defeated populations after battles.
Islam raised the dignity and treatment of slaves who became members of owners’ households and were provided with similar food and clothing. Prophet Muhammad (s) encouraged freeing of slaves as worship (ibadah). The trajectory of his teachings should have led to wholesale emancipation.
Tony Blair in 2006 described Britain’s participation in slavery as a ‘crime against humanity’ and expressed deep sorrow without, however, apologising, while the US Senate apologised in 2009.
Blood stains from Britain’s civilisational legacy – from the West African slave trade, and today’s continuing turmoil in the Middle East – deserve severe opprobrium.
An avid reader in my youth my Christian conscience never recovered after I read that a famous British slave trading ship was named “Jesus.” Subsequently finding that many ideologues of the period were arguing that black people were not really human and finding that the famous anti-slavery campaigners of the evangelical community were opposed to the trade not the holding of slaves, I drifted from Anglicanism.
Dear Dr Batchelor,
Are you trying to rewrite history or directly mislead any naïve reader? You have left out the Islamic slave trade into Morocco, The Ottoman Empire, the slave trade across the Sahara and the Red Sea and all the Islamic countries North East of Africa. It would appear your map is lacking these facts.
Thanks for your valuable comment Br. Bilal. My own interest in the subject derives from having five of my own grandchildren who are also Afro-Americans with slave ancestors, who obviously survived their severe historical maltreatment.
Dear Chris Morris.
The historical account provided stands true and can be tested for anyone who wishes to conduct their own independent research and is by no means misleading. I clearly acknowledged that Muslims were separately involved in slavery and slave-trading, but differ markedly from the barbaric West European Atlantic trade, in that Islam required Muslims treat their slaves humanely as fellow humans, feed and clothe them as they themselves were fed and clothed, and it is not Islamically permissible to raid, kidnap and enslave free men and women who were not judged as criminals or who had not been taken in battle. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) strongly encouraged the manumission of slaves. The map accompanying my article on Britain’s leading role appropriately portrayed only the European West African (Atlantic) slave trade where Muslims chiefs were not significantly involved. Perhaps you are unaware of the major differences between European West African slavery and slavery in Muslim lands. The British view of slave-trading that certain races were not fully human (such as West Africans) was also exemplified by British colonial administrators who called Australia “Terra Nullius,” inferring that Australian Aborigines, who had occupied the land for 65,000 years, were less than human.
Yes, Br Daud, there is indeed a huge difference between slavery as practiced by Muslims and European slavery.
While slavery was repugnant to Islamic world view, due to historical reasons, it was not absolutely abolished at the advent of Islam. It was continued as a solution to find a place for the prisoners of war, men or women in a Muslim society. However freeing of slaves, their compassionate treatment, their marriage with free Muslims was practiced in all Muslim societies and sharia ensured equal, legitimate inheritance of property by children from slave women. Moreover, slavery was not based on racism, where black, white, brown prisoners of war were all treated as slaves. That is the reason that many slaves, specially of Turkish origins rose to high ranks in Muslim caliphate/empires and even as rulers, we know as slave dynasties ruling in India, Iraq and Egypt for centuries. Of course admittedly some Muslims did get involved in black slave trade against Islamic teachings.
On the other hand European slavery was based on racism exclusively for black people considering them less human in contrast to the Islamic world view with respect to slavery.