Should Britain Apologise For The Slave Trade?

The enslaved also became known as personal property to their masters and lost all their rightful customary rights being human beings. Portugal and Spain did end up dominating the slaver trade during the 16th century; as a result they shipped over two thousand Africans per year to the Americas. The trading that took place of import goods in exchange with the return of the exporting of Africans was a complete consequence of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade. The profits from the slave trade were so great the Dutch, French and English become involved in 1550. With the development of tobacco as a cash crop in Virginia and Maryland during the 1620's and with the large expansion of sugar production the demand for African slaves grew. The end result and the direct consequence was that England and France compete with the Dutch to take over the Atlantic Slave trade. After a host of wars England then took over the Trans Atlantic Slave trade which overthrew the Dutch in 1764 and victories over France and Spain occurred in 1713. This allowed English traders the right to supply slaves to all of Spain's American colonies. The profits of the Atlantic Slave trade produced in the America's by slave labor were invested in England and consequently helped fund the industrial revolution during the 18th century. In return, Africa became a market for cheap English manufactured

The Atlantic Slave Trade was a part of African history that had made one of it's biggest impact on Africa's relation with the world and more importantly on the inner workings of the country itself due to its large-scale involvement of many of the people in the continent. Although the slave trade was so long ago the impact can still be seen in Africa's social workings within the people, its economy in the local and global market, and within the political landscape of the countries.

From the 17th century until the 19th century, almost twelve million Africans were brought to the New World against their will to perform back-breaking labour under terrible conditions. The rationalizations and defences given for slavery and the slave trade were absurd and self-serving. Slavery was a truly barbaric, and those who think that they can control what another group of people eat, where they sleep, whether they are to live or die, or even whether they are to be bought or sold, are acting on a totally inhumane level.

In 2001, an international conference on racism was held in South Africa. The African countries wanted an ‘apology’ for the slave trade, but European countries would only state that they ‘regret’ it. The final wording of the conference’s declaration on slavery was agreed as follows:

Although all this documents stress voices from the Slave Trade, each document sheds a unique light on the much-debated question about who should be held responsible for the tragedy of the Atlantic slave trade. For example, Document 15.1 sheds light on the role of both European and African merchants in the trafficking of slaves as well as the human suffering of the slave trade. However Document 15.2 reveals the cooperation between local African rulers and European and African traders in the slave trade. Moreover, Documents 15.3 focus on how disruptive European traders could be to established African governments, even those that actively opposed the slave trade. And finally, Document 15.4 shows how some African leaders were attached to the slave trade and promoted it even when European were moving to end it. Nonetheless, all the documents do shed a clear and a full light on what should be held responsible for the

Great Britain abolished its slave trade in 1807, sending the Royal Navy to blockade the coast of Africa and intercept slavers in an effort to shut down the commerce altogether. In 1833, it did away with slavery itself in all its empire. And yet when war over slavery broke out in the United States in 1861, the British government remained neutral, even though it was led by Lord Palmerston — who, according to Christopher Dickey in “Our Man in Charleston,” believed himself to be “the leader of Christendom in its opposition to the slave trade.” This meant that Liverpool shipyards could sell heavily fortified “merchant” vessels to the Confederates (easily converted into war ships) and London investors could buy cotton bonds, which helped finance

Screams for relief, cries for comfort, and moans for death all revolved around the slave trade. The slave trade is an event that not only impacted Africa, but the whole world even still today. This essay will explain how cultures were ruined and families were torn apart. The slave trade has influenced history worldwide because it has impacted continents economically, socially, and politically.

When we hear the terms “slave” or “slave trade” the first thing that comes to mind is African Americans. Slave trade a term taught often in history classes has a meaning that has now become synonymous with African American. There term trade summons up images of exchanging goods for service. The sad truth is that this has not become a common sequence, almost like a math equation whose answer is always African American. Some useful ways to talk about slave trade is by restoring humanity to the millions who died under the racial global order. By referring to slave trade as “european slave trade” we are able to disconnect the word african from slave trade however, it gives the audience the wrong idea concerning the awful things these people went through. We need to bring humanity back to the name of the African Americans.

The British slave trade was one of the major parts of the British economy and it was very prevalent it the time, especially among the upper class. Slavery

Liverpool is an example of a place in Britain that really benefited from the slave trade. Liverpool was able to gain 12 million pounds from 878 voyages and the sale of 30,000 African slaves. This money helped greatly towards reshaping Liverpool’s infrastructure and kick starting the industrial revolution. The slave trade made Liverpool the second city of the British Empire as well as turning Liverpool from a struggling port to one of the most richest and successful trading centers in the world. Liverpool gained 90% of Britain’s share of the slave trade which helped to build buildings such as the Town Hall.

By the time that the slave trade had been abolished in Britain and her colonies in 1807 eleven million men, women and children had been snatched from their homes. For historians understanding the factors that led to the abolition of the trade remains an important task. Whilst there is clearly a consensus on the main factors that led to this seismic and historic event there is obviously a difference in opinion on the most important due to the degree of subjectivity the question poses.

Before I explain my reasoning, understand that I in no way would wish slavery on any people. One could only imagine what it would be like to live as a slave. I was to simply analyze both sides of the panel's debate and draw a conclusion based on the arguments presented. Based on the arguments presented, I deliver my opinion that reparations should not be awarded to those ancestors of the Atlantic Slave trade. I do agree with the pro-reparations panel that slave trade was and is still wrong. The selling of humans is not human and should not be tolerated. I firmly believe that slavery even though

This essay will attempt to describe the modalities and consequences of the abolition of the slave trade in early nineteenth century West Africa. We now live in a world where slavery is considered not to be morale since it was abolished however cases of slavery still exist today but are hidden from the public eye so well that no one even knows the exist. Forcing someone to perform various duties like cleaning without any form of payment against their will is considered to be a form of slavery and anyone found to be having slaves or holding anyone against their will these days is punished and possibly sentenced to jail for a very long period of time. We are in the 21st century and slavery is something that is not accepted by

Labor exploitation was the key for the effectiveness of european expansion in the new world and define slavery as a principal component for global capitalism until it was not longer profitable. The atlantic slave trade influence europe economic growth and market development to rapidly spread through the atlantic trade. It was a intense dependence on the triangular trade that made merchants made big profits at the expense of the exploited labour abroad. Merchants were involved in all three sides of the triangle trade that allowed the transportation of slaves from Europe to Africa where goods were traded for slaves and then those slaves were brought to the Americas for the cultivation food crops and other raw materials; these later were brought back to Europe, Africa and the Americas to be sold. Resistance and revolts against the trade of slave was stronger in African areas where european demographic power was lower but “It was not until 1780s that increasing european along the west of africa coast finally drove up the price of slaves” and the overproduction of sugar in the caribbean and other raw materials lead the fall in the selling price of these products (shillington p181) european nations began to question whether the trade was still profitable or not. Britain was the first to completely abolished slavery in 1834 when manufactures found european labor in factories more efficient and less expensive than plantations. It was follow for the french colonies 1848, Cuba in

The Atlantic slave trade existed from the 16th to the early 19th century and stimulated trade between Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Over 12 million Africans were captured and sold into chattel slavery off the coast of West Africa, and more than 2 million of them died crossing the Atlantic. These outcomes of the slave trade are rarely disputed among historians; the effect of the Atlantic slave trade in Africa, however, is often a topic of debate. Some academics, such as Walter Rodney, insist that Africans were forced to take part in the slave trade, resulting in demographic disruption and underdevelopment in all sectors of Africa. Historian John Thornton acknowledges the negative consequences of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, yet contends that it was merely an expansion of the existing internal slave trade which African rulers engaged in willingly. A final case made by Hugh Thomas completely contradicts Rodney’s thesis, asserting that the slave trade was not solely responsible for decreasing Africa’s population, and furthermore, that it was primarily beneficial to Africa’s economy and politics. The true outcome of the slave trade in Africa lies not entirely in any one of these arguments, but rests rather in a combination of all three. Although the Atlantic slave trade was detrimental to the economic and social development of Africa, the trade benefited a small portion of Africans, who willingly aligned themselves with