Meanwhile, in Canada

[Ken]

Ken, the character of British emancipation was different from the American version in many ways but don't forget the most amazing (in my opinion) detail. In the British version reparations were paid to the slaveholders to compensate for their loss of the privilege of enslaving, but nothing to the enslaved. This meant descendants of the enslaved were paying taxes to service debt incurred by the crown to compensate their tormentors. This debt extended well into the 20th century. In an ethical sense British slavery was never renounced, only bought out by the crown.

That seems preferrable to a civil war... and in any case, the actual people paying those taxes were probably wealthy people who pay the lions' share of taxes, not the descendants of slaves who (if the narrative about poverty is to be believed) are poorer and don't owe as much (if any) taxes.

That is also probably how slavery would have eventually ended in the US had the Confederacy decided not to start a civil war.

Choosing war as a course of action when you have other alternatives is rarely the right decision. And rarely ends how you expect. You would think countries would learn that by now. But no, they have to keep learning that lesson the hard way.

[MaxPC]

…the character of British emancipation was different from the American version in many ways but don't forget the most amazing (in my opinion) detail. In the British version reparations were paid to the slaveholders to compensate for their loss of the privilege of enslaving, but nothing to the enslaved. This meant descendants of the enslaved were paying taxes to service debt incurred by the crown to compensate their tormentors. This debt extended well into the 20th century. In an ethical sense British slavery was never renounced, only bought out by the crown.

That seems preferrable to a civil war... and in any case, the actual people paying those taxes were probably wealthy people who pay the lions' share of taxes, not the descendants of slaves who (if the narrative about poverty is to be believed) are poorer and don't owe as much (if any) taxes.

Random thoughts regarding recriminations, reparations and the histories of empires. When an empire no longer exists, how useful is it to continue to play the blame game in the hope of monetary advantage?

Should Christians be a part of such efforts to blame an old political structure? Or should Christians put their energies into helping those who are in need now? I admire those groups that use their time, talents and treasure to help areas stricken by disaster or disease. They repair and console rather than recriminate and sue.

[temporal1]

i realize the video on P.40, JBP in a pink shirt, is over an hour.
However, he has a number of surprising observations that might add to the discussion.

i appreciate time stamps with videos, this one doesn’t offer them.
Transcripts are great.

[barnhart]

Ken, the character of British emancipation was different from the American version in many ways but don't forget the most amazing (in my opinion) detail. In the British version reparations were paid to the slaveholders to compensate for their loss of the privilege of enslaving, but nothing to the enslaved. This meant descendants of the enslaved were paying taxes to service debt incurred by the crown to compensate their tormentors. This debt extended well into the 20th century. In an ethical sense British slavery was never renounced, only bought out by the crown.

That seems preferrable to a civil war... and in any case, the actual people paying those taxes were probably wealthy people who pay the lions' share of taxes, not the descendants of slaves who (if the narrative about poverty is to be believed) are poorer and don't owe as much (if any) taxes.

That is also probably how slavery would have eventually ended in the US had the Confederacy decided not to start a civil war.

Choosing war as a course of action when you have other alternatives is rarely the right decision. And rarely ends how you expect. You would think countries would learn that by now. But no, they have to keep learning that lesson the hard way.

It's possible. I recall some of the border states where there were few enslavers actually paid them to relinquish "ownership". Maryland maybe?

[temporal1]

In the last 10 min or so, he addresses a question i’ve had for years .. i.e., how common has it been in history for (the many) world cultures with slaves to make formal+legal decisions to free them, recognize them as citizens, et al.? My guess has been it’s uncommon, if not rare. JBP speaks to it from his studied pov. And, of course, a lot more.

It usually comes at the point of a gun after violent revolution. ..

My interest is more from an anthropological view of “what really happens?” .. rather than, what is big, widely reported, etc.
It’s not about “usually” or “probably” based on loose, common observations+biases, speculations.

Slavery has history everywhere, mostly between people who look like each other. THOMAS SOWELL describes slavery as a mostly tech-dependent economic phenomena, my question is, if TS is correct, as economics alter, do slaves just become quietly integrated into their surrounds, without fanfare?

i’m thinking they might, and probably so, for instance, thinking of Catholic monks taken by Vikings, African tribes, etc.
In numbers, in history, not noise, i question whether the big reported/documented wars aren’t the exception, rather than the rule.

At about the [00:00] mark, JBP references how England decided to end slavery, how unique this was in history, how important it was in history, and the good that resulted. He has various observations not ordinarily recited in the prevailing lib culture.

[i’m thinking of doing time stamps to add for JBP’s hour+video.] If it were mid-winter, the idea might be more inviting.

As others note, discussing topics without reading/viewing articles/videos, isn’t satisfying.
It’s ok not to read/view, it’s ok not to comment.

[ohio jones]

However, he has a number of surprising observations that might add to the discussion.

Such as ... ?

[temporal1]

However, he has a number of surprising observations that might add to the discussion.

Such as ... ?

A few are listed in the video “Description” part i quoted on P.40, and, i’m thinking about doing my own “time stamps” to add here. Problem (for me) being, he covers references an awful lot so quickly.

A transcript would be best. i’m not hopeful.

[ohio jones]

A transcript would be best. i’m not hopeful.

First, locate and select the YouTube video that you would like to transcribe. Then, find and click the ‘...’ located on the bottom-right side under the video and select ‘Show transcript.’ You should see a transcript of the video pop up on the right-hand side of your screen.

[temporal1]

A transcript would be best. i’m not hopeful.

First, locate and select the YouTube video that you would like to transcribe. Then, find and click the ‘...’ located on the bottom-right side under the video and select ‘Show transcript.’ You should see a transcript of the video pop up on the right-hand side of your screen.

Thanks.
i’m not sure why this info didn’t appear in the past when i was searching .. i only found results for paid services for voice to text transcriptions??

But now i see lots of info+short tutorials.

They’re saying this only works where there is CC/closed captioning, that there are some added services for non-CC.
i like CC, but there are sometimes crazy errors. There are notes about errors in CC, too. And how to correct.

i get the idea. i’m going to have to study it, my devices may not be new enough? or too basic?
(so far, no luck with this video.) i’ll keep trying.

i hope i can get it figured out. i like the idea. plus, it appears the transcripts come with time stamps! that’s helpful, too.

[Josh]

I tend to read transcripts of YouTube videos instead of watching them (such as those police cam videos people are always sharing).