David Olusoga needs to be a bit careful here

It is the fact that the histories of slavery and empire are becoming mainstream, and that young people are entirely comfortable with the reality that “profit and suffering” were at the centre of both, that appears to disturb the authors and the government whose agenda they have so faithfully served. Determined to privilege comforting national myths over hard historical truths, they give the impression of being people who would prefer this history to be brushed back under the carpet.

The historical illiteracy and internal inconsistencies do not stop there. The report argues that young black people should reclaim their British heritage. Which is exactly what black British people have been doing, by recovering the contributions of their ancestors to British history and culture. Yet the report crudely characterises those struggles to bring marginalised black figures and communities into the mainstream of British history as “token expressions of black achievement” – a poisonously patronising phrase.

Well, yes. Except “black britons” are, roughly enough, 3% of the current population. Given that in 1945 the black population was some 8,000 to 10,000 people the current number is roughly equally divided, 1.5% of total population each, between afrocaribbeans and black africans – all of whom are British.

Meaning that the ancestral connection with slavery for black britons is roughly equally divided between those whose folks were selling peeps to the wipipo and those peeps who were sold to the wipipo. It’s gonna be difficult to have a single experience out of that really.

9 thoughts on “David Olusoga needs to be a bit careful here”

  1. “Meaning that the ancestral connection with slavery for black britons is roughly equally divided between those whose folks were selling peeps to the wipipo and those peeps who were sold to the wipipo. It’s gonna be difficult to have a single experience out of that really.”

    He’s a Lefty, all Blacks look alike to him. Its the only way they are of any use to the Left, if they can be all squeezed into the same cookie cutter mould, and used to further the Leftist cause (power of course). If there are nuances and shades of grey then they lose all their emotional impact as victims, and that won’t do. So to the Left all Blacks, regardless of where they come from and what their cultural and historical inheritance is, are all ‘slaves’ as far as the likes of Olusoga are concerned.

  2. The Monty Python sketch springs to mind
    – at the centre of what made the empire were profit and suffering
    : that’s two things occupying one space Sir
    – ok then I’ll rephrase, the two things central to its success were profit, power and suffering.
    . . .etc

    Pretty much every system of organisation has profit as a motive. As for suffering, the profit motive of the better slave traders of that era was to reduce suffering, they hired better navigators, designed better ships, took precautions against disease etc because their cargo was worth more if it arrived in good shape. Profit motivated those doing the enslaving to capture other tribespeople with minimum losses. Brutal world at the time.

  3. Perhaps the UK should instead point out the similarity of African and European colonisation of the Americas. Both compelled people to settle new lands; in both cases those at home made a healthy profit.

    Of course one could then go on to point out the startling resemblance between white colonisation of Africa and black colonisation of Europe, and the similarity of the natives’ response. And the claim of colonisers like Olusoga that it’s actually good for them to be introduced to real civilisation.

  4. The numbers are slightly skewed there, as half the afrocarribeans are descendents of African slaves liberated by the the British International Piracy Patrol and settled in the Carribean as an alternative to being handed back to the African slavers back home.

  5. Marxist shite being poured into kids ears by a lying and corrupt state “education” system should concern us all.

  6. Theophrastus (2066)

    Olosuga needs to be reminded of King Gezo of Dahomey, who protested to the British in 1840:

    “The slave trade has been the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their glory and wealth. Their songs celebrate their victories and the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery.”

    When the great slave King died in 1858, some 800 slaves were massacred in his memory. Another 800 captured Africans were contributed, as ceremonial tribute, to the deceased King, by other African slave dealers from the Kingdom of Whydah, in what is now southern Benin, West Africa.

    The tradition of human slaughter, the “grand custom”, was one held in the highest esteem by King Gezo. It showed his great power over the life and death of others. Hundreds would be massacred at a time as tribute to some arbitrary event named by the King.

    Now, David, what were you saying about the cruelty of the British Empire?

  7. Ah, that’s easy Theo…

    King Gezo was obviously a Product of the Empire and did in no way represent the rich original indiginous culture that suffered under the Yoke of Repression by Empire-supported Lackeys…

    You know they can wiggle out of anything..

  8. I have always wondered at the origin of the black communities in Liverpool Bristol And London Given that slavery was never legal in England, is it at least not possible that those communities are made up of the decendents of the African guards taken on board the slave ships to look after the slave cargo.? After all, the traders would not have wanted to pay for a large white crew on the way to Africa, so would have recruited locals to guard and look after the slaves. They couldn’t land in the America’s for fear of being taken as slaves, but could land in the slavers home ports. just sayin it’s possible…

  9. Mr. Olusoga must be somewhat old hat to residents of Old Blighty, but we are recently being subjected to the documentaries produced by this man on the West Coast of Canada, why I do not know as the area was formally organized long after the trans Atlantic slave trade was abolished. My theory is that these programes are being aired because they fit the dual criteria of being “woke”, albeit not as stupidly so as some products of the American Left, and cheap to air.
    However the historical bias is obvious, basically that Britain has no indigenous peoples, or cultures, that white people are inherently racist, that colonization was evil, therefore Britian must welcome inhabitants of all of her former colonies with open arms. Ignoring the fact that Britain was the first colonial power to no only abolish slavery, but to actively seek it’s destruction, because it was a freer, and more open society, and that white, anti slavery, and Christian activists lobbied for decades to make it so. Instead Olusoga focuses on whether former slave owners received some sort of financial compensation; Was the preferable solution what the United States went through in the 1850s and 60s to make it’s slave owners give up the practice?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *