Links between railways and slavery to be explored in new research project

[John Luxton]

As a former history teacher I would have thought you'd understand why not. Things have never remained fixed. Stories invariably have more than one side to it and whether or not you view something as "good" or "bad" depends on which side you view it from. Whether you identify someone as being a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" depends on whether or not you identify with their aims. History is always written by the victors, and all that. There are no sacred cows when it comes to the past.

We constantly reinterpret history in the light of new evidence. For example, we are learning a lot more about our early Celtic culture through the artifacts that have been discovered which has allowed us to reinterpret that period of our history and understand far more than the slightly dismissive description given by the Romans.

I appreciate things are not actually fixed and I have no problem with new research being undertaken. Though what I object to is the type of revisionism which attempts to paint the UK or perhaps previously highly regarded people in bad light to suit the political objectives of some groups, in particularly those whose heritage may not be indiginously Celtic / Anglo-Saxon. There has been in creasing tendency for this to happen over the past 20 years or so.

In 2020 due to events far away it seemed to gain even more impetus. There appears to be an agenda somewhere, as these are not just singular items of the past being reappraised. It appears a whole industry has been developed around it.

With regard to terrorists / freedom fighters - I have been fascinated by the Anglo - Irish Conflict have read quite widely and visited a number of museums and frankly I have decided to sit on the fence over the issue. But I came to the my position of neutrality after reading widely from both pro British and pro Irish views, but I did that freely.

I am not against change, some change is for the better, but I feel as though it needs to be much slower and gradual than it often is. This sudden urge to reappraise past links with slavery, undermine historical figures is just as much an issue for me as the current obsession with climate change - that has also become a current cult "industry"

Rapid or forced change can be disturbing for people - especially when people cannot see how it benefits them but only others.

What does "wokeism" mean please?

I think this explains it - not my words but found on the web:

"Wokeism is a Marxist inspired movement that started off with well-intentioned people that wanted to stop racism and social injustice. It has now morphed into a cult that seeks to silence all of those that disagree. At first, using social humiliation, but now graduating to violence through Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots.

Wokeism demands equity not equality. It seeks to destroy all norms, to redefine words, and destroy objective science in order to create a Marxist Utopia. Instead of reducing racism, this new anti-racism is just racism by a different name.

Wokeism is a full-on attack on Western Society. It rewrites history in order to confuse and inspire the destruction of the West. This virus is infecting every part of society. From children's schools to the Government. It is everywhere and is now threatening to end freedom of speech and thought. It has become impossible to speak out without fear of career-death and possible physical harm."

 

[WesternLancer]

What about "no platforming" and statue toppling it doesn't achieve anything nor promote debate, it created more division.

But I strongly suspect that it was people who felt nothing was being discussed about slavery, or the history they felt was important to them, or that there were only statues of people they could not identify with in terms of their own personal ancestor's stories - that created a scenario where they felt forced (or happy to) pull such statues down.

 

[Master Cutler]

I'm in favour of any research that gives us a deeper understanding of our colonial past in whatever form, but why must it always become so devisive?
Time and again people take it upon themselves to take ownership of the research to try and create social unrest.
We all know that there are some unpleasant events in our history, but why do we get contantly bombarded with media images of the resulting urban chaos.

 

[WesternLancer]

I think this explains it - not my words but found on the web:

"Wokeism is a Marxist inspired movement that started off with well-intentioned people that wanted to stop racism and social injustice. It has now morphed into a cult that seeks to silence all of those that disagree. At first, using social humiliation, but now graduating to violence through Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots.

Wokeism demands equity not equality. It seeks to destroy all norms, to redefine words, and destroy objective science in order to create a Marxist Utopia. Instead of reducing racism, this new anti-racism is just racism by a different name.

Wokeism is a full-on attack on Western Society. It rewrites history in order to confuse and inspire the destruction of the West. This virus is infecting every part of society. From children's schools to the Government. It is everywhere and is now threatening to end freedom of speech and thought. It has become impossible to speak out without fear of career-death and possible physical harm."

You didn't reference that web extract - but it's not exactly an unbiased source is it? Not exactly written by someone without 'an agenda'

Account Suspended

I'm in favour of any research that gives us a deeper understanding of our colonial past in whatever form, but why must it always become so devisive?
Time and again people take it upon themselves to take ownership of the research to try and create social unrest.
We all know that there are some unpleasant events in our history, but why do we get contantly bombarded with media images of the resulting urban chaos.

Because Bad News = Good News (if you sell news)

Good news is No news....

If it is divisive that is in the interpretation of the research.

Only when this research is actually done - and published can we decide if this applies here - but some posters here would seemingly rather the research was not done at all. I hope we can revisit it when they have published their findings!

Perhaps railway history needs further analysis of Stanier's contribution to LMS loco boiler performance instead... Or more publications on the GWR - now that would be devisive

 

[John Luxton]

You didn't reference that web extract - but it's not exactly an unbiased source is it? Not exactly written by someone without 'an agenda'

Account Suspended

It was actually one of the first that came up and is basically on the line of my perception and probably many others too.

 

[WesternLancer]

It was actually one of the first that came up and is basically on the line of my thinking.

Not suggesting you sought out that site in particular. But I think that is how search engines work. There's no editor of the internet who rank the most authoritative websites after all.

This was the 1st that came up for me (no mention of Marx on the page concerned I note)

Woke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dai Corner]

Not suggesting you sought out that site in particular. But I think that is how search engines work. There's no editor of the internet who rank the most authoritative websites after all.

This was the 1st that came up for me (no mention of Marx on the page concerned I note)

Woke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not the first I got on my Google search, but I like this definition of wokeism (as opposed to wokeness).

The Psychology of "Wokeism"

Hate cannot stand up to analogized, contextualized empathy.

www.psychologytoday.com

On the political left, wokeness sometimes drifts into wokeism—a system of thought and behavior characterized by intolerance, policing the speech of others, and proving one’s own superiority by denouncing others.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Pulling down statues in Bristol may have been illegal, but it was effective and got attention in a way other methods could not.

If woke means awake, alert, open I am happy to be woke/awake.

 

[O L Leigh]

I get very nervous when people start evoking political terms in opposition to non-political activities. It’s jumping the gun. Let’s see what gets discovered, how it is presented and how it gets used before we start with any accusations of wokeism.

 

[WesternLancer]

It's also worth a read of this - which mentions the research plans to have a European context - not prev mentioned on this thread AFAIK

White Rose University Consortium to fund Railways and Slavery Research Project | National Railway Museum

Universities and museums across Yorkshire and the North of England will explore the links between the railways and the global slave trade as part of a new research project.

www.railwaymuseum.org.uk

Some european regimes seem to have been less enlightened than their GB counterparts

Atrocities in the Congo Free State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

some of which is truly horrific - and seems to have involved slavery well into the photographic (not to mention the steam) age.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I think this explains it - not my words but found on the web:

"Wokeism is a Marxist inspired movement that started off with well-intentioned people that wanted to stop racism and social injustice. It has now morphed into a cult that seeks to silence all of those that disagree. At first, using social humiliation, but now graduating to violence through Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots.

Wokeism demands equity not equality. It seeks to destroy all norms, to redefine words, and destroy objective science in order to create a Marxist Utopia. Instead of reducing racism, this new anti-racism is just racism by a different name.

Wokeism is a full-on attack on Western Society. It rewrites history in order to confuse and inspire the destruction of the West. This virus is infecting every part of society. From children's schools to the Government. It is everywhere and is now threatening to end freedom of speech and thought. It has become impossible to speak out without fear of career-death and possible physical harm."

Oh my goodness, that is quite literally the far-right and antisemitic Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory!

Not the first I got on my Google search, but I like this definition of wokeism (as opposed to wokeness).

The Psychology of "Wokeism"

Hate cannot stand up to analogized, contextualized empathy.

www.psychologytoday.com

Psychology Today's peer-reviewed or expert articles can be quite good, but a lot of its opinion pieces can veer towards pseudoscience or navel gazing. This one seems to be a decent enough opinion piece, although you won't find really find 'wokeism' used in an academic or psychological context - my university's search engine gives just two examples in peer-reviewed journals.

It's also worth a read of this - which mentions the research plans to have a European context - not prev mentioned on this thread AFAIK

White Rose University Consortium to fund Railways and Slavery Research Project | National Railway Museum

Universities and museums across Yorkshire and the North of England will explore the links between the railways and the global slave trade as part of a new research project.

www.railwaymuseum.org.uk

Some european regimes seem to have been less enlightened than their GB counterparts

Atrocities in the Congo Free State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

some of which is truly horrific - and seems to have involved slavery well into the photographic (not to mention the steam) age.

Oh yes, the Belgians were horrific even by colonial standards. We studied Alice Seeley Harris and her photography that exposed the colonial atrocities in the Congo, and some of those images have never left my mind.

 

[O L Leigh]

I think this explains it - not my words but found on the web:

You have found a rather politically charged definition, which is not a surprise when you consider where you found it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given the importance of the "Liverpool party" in promoting and financing early railway schemes, many of them well beyond Merseyside, I think the investigation is bound to find substantial links between railway finance and capital acquired from the slave trade.

The Duke of Sutherland (and the Duchess) are revered in railway circles for their promotion of the Grand Junction Railway and the LNWR.
It's not slavery, but the Sutherlands were largely responsible for the ugly highland clearances in the early 19th century, as part of their wealth creation.
The Duke's wealth also derived from his uncle the Duke of Bridgewater, whose fortune was derived from his canal enterprise and the growth of the Lancashire cotton trade with its links to slavery.
It's as well to have the full picture of how the Georgians/Victorians came to dominate world trade, and where their wealth came from.

 

[6Gman]

Also no one has mentioned the African's role in capturing and selling slave to anyone willing to pay, they got rich from the proceed.

Mentioned in #21, #22, #23, #25 and #26.

 

[Vespa]

Mentioned in #21, #22, #23, #25 and #26.

Called TLDR

 

[DerekC]

Railways are just infrastructure, they did nothing wrong, it's governments that are always to blame for anything terrible.
Worst thing railways were ever used for to my knowledge, was in the mass genocides in the 1940s, are trains are railways worthy of contempt for being used in such sickening ways?
No, all the blame lies with the Nazi Party. Likewise, anything relating to slavery, colonialism, and other symptoms of empire, fall entirely at the state committing such acts.

The Nazi Party wasn't the government to start with. It came to power because people voted for it, giving Hitler sufficient control to establish a dictatorship. There are always people with extreme racialist views and who seek to dominate. The problem with Hitler was that sufficient numbers of an educated people were prepared to turn a blind eye to his known agenda and vote for him because he offered them their national pride back after the first world war. We get the governments that we vote for.

Slavery has existed since before history started to be written down. What was shocking about it between the 17th and early 19th Centuries was the mass commercialisation by what thought of itself as a civilised society and the associated view that it was OK to buy and sell people with black skin as slaves because they were somehow inferior. Let's be clear - it was done because it was highly profitable. The state's part in it was to allow it to continue - probably because the people in government were making money out of it.

 

[WesternLancer]

Called TLDR

So I guess you wont be reading the finished research then, as it will be longer than this thread I suspect.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Oh yes, the Belgians were horrific even by colonial standards. We studied Alice Seeley Harris and her photography that exposed the colonial atrocities in the Congo, and some of those images have never left my mind.

Actually it wasn't "the Belgians", rather it was King Leopold II who was the personal owner of the Congo Free State until popular opinion, as you say, forced the Belgian state to take over the running of the country in 1909.
Leopold hired adventurers and mercenaries to help him subdue and loot the Congo, one of the leaders being Henry Morton Stanley of "Dr Livingstone, I presume?" fame, but otherwise of highly dubious practices with links to the Arab slavers.
The good burghers of Denbigh have recently voted to keep its statue of Stanley, one of its own.

There's much in this thread about the current generation not being responsible for the faults of past generations, but it must be acknowledged that today's British standard of living and historic wealth is in no small measure due to the profits of colonialism, including slavery and the looting of resources in the empire.
That wealth found its way into estates, industrial and trade development, shipping and into our biggest port cities (notably London, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow), and the early canals and railways were part of this.
It might reasonably be argued that the British exploitation of its colonies was more principled than that of other powers, but that doesn't absolve us from responsibility for our government's policies and actions over the years.
There's a tendency to promote the good bits and ignore/deny the bad bits of our history.

 

[43096]

There's a tendency to promote the good bits and deny the bad bits of our history.

The great Michael Holding sums it up brilliantly: "History is written by the conqueror, not by those that are conquered."

 

[DarloRich]

I just want our railway history to be left as it is and not reinterpreted.

What are you scared of?

Already a group of National Trust members have formed the "Restore Trust" to the return the trust to conserving historic properties and not focus on the latest trendy PC agendas.

No - you mean a group of old fuddy duddys and right wing ranters/"influencers" who cant cope with the modern world are complaining because history is being explained in full and challenging thier view of the world.

Most of us just want our history left as it is yes it had its darker sides - and the information is there for people to find if they so care.

But not explained to people in full. I ask again what are you worried about?

Rewriting history can be dangerous it can push people to the extremes.

But that is EXACTLY what you want to do. You want only the history you like to be known. You have written out large sections of history. Why does knowing the full picture cause you so much angst?

Railways are just infrastructure, they did nothing wrong, it's governments that are always to blame for anything terrible.

I am not sure you understand the topic. Those who funded the railways will, no doubt, have benefited financially from the slave trade. I really don't understand why it is such a problem to admit that and discuss it.

However, virtually all of his presentation was concerned the identification of those likely to become involved in right wing groups and right wing terrorism.

Rightly so - that is an area of massive concern to the authorities. Right wing crack pots are on the rise in this country.

Now has the penny not dropped with those in power that some people are drifting to the extremes because they are starting to feel as though they are becoming an alien in their own country? That people, events, traditions and values are being undermined? As a result it provokes a reaction

No: it is because right wing ranters and social media outlets tell people, especially those of limited intellect, what thye want to hear. They offer a simple solution. You aren't to blame for the bad choices you made in life. The "others" are to blame.

Why not just leave things as they are?

Because it is a lie! or at least not accurate. Why do you want to continue the lie?

Sometimes progressive attitudes can be perceived as threatening by those with traditional views.

What you actually mean is my middle class view on history is being challenged and I don't like that. I really don't understand why. The understanding of history changes over time as more sources and information comes to light. What are you worried about in seeing the full picture?

In 2020 due to events far away it seemed to gain even more impetus. There appears to be an agenda somewhere, as these are not just singular items of the past being reappraised. It appears a whole industry has been developed around it.

Here is the crux of the issue.

I think this explains it

it doesn't but it does explain your stance. Thank you. That link is more informative as to your stance than I think you appreciate. What was it my history teacher used to say: I think you need to read more widely around the subject

 

[AlterEgo]

Maybe something. Maybe nothing. Unless people look no-one is going to know.

My question would be: how many people would be surprised that many of the railway’s investors had some sort of link to slavery?

It was a huge industry, I would have thought...most people would be pretty au fait with the idea that if you took 100 industrialists in the 1800s, up tio half of them would have made money in some way or other linked to the slave trade?

It seems to be a very small sum of money allocated to looking at the history, which wouldn't even pay for one researcher for three months, and I Would be surprised if anything especially in-depth or groundbreaking came from the research.

 

[Vespa]

So I guess you wont be reading the finished research then, as it will be longer than this thread I suspect.

I won't need to when I hear of activities like this

(I'm not able to copy and paste the entire article)

Israel's ambassador to the UK is evacuated from LSE by security guards

Home Secretary Priti Patel, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi blasted the 'aggressive and threatening behaviour' towards Tzipi Hotovely in London last night.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Which is not the first time wokery tried to censor free speech and intimidate those that opposes their views.

It is a discredited movement.

 

[43066]

Exactly it has - developed its own momentum - furthered by political agendas.

I spent 34 years as a teacher of history and geography and gradually saw this agenda coming in various forms, it was subtle and insidious. Quite quickly the term BCE started to replace BC in school text books long before it appeared in mainstream history books. A colleague asked me why I wasn't using it in my time line and wall displays. I told them where to go in no uncertain terms.

Perhaps I could be seen by some to be a victim of my own past and thus need re educating myself by some of these trendies?

I had three History teachers at school, one of whom was a rather jingoistic ex RAF type, and having come from a traditional patriotic British background was brought up on the "my country - right or wrong" basis. Thus one accepted the past as having happened and if it benefited the country and its people so be it.

Performing what are essentially muck raking exercises will not change my views at the age of 62, I see them as a sinister way of turning the younger generation into people who loath their own nation and forbears for what happened in the past.

Not everything was good about the past - but would it not be more constructive to spend money dealing with modern day slavery and exploitation which is more insidious?

I just want our railway history to be left as it is and not reinterpreted.

This sort of project is unnecessary. I really cannot see how steam railways and ships have anything to do with the slave trade or slavery in the British Empire - the dates are completely awry:

1. The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807 and the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron then suppressed as much of the remaining trade as it could with the technology of the time - square-rigged frigates and muzzle loading cannon.
2. After over twenty years the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars with France ended with the defeat of Napoleon by Wellington and Blücher at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815
3. Arguably the first steam railways in their modern form were the Stockton and Darlington in 1825 and the Liverpool and Manchester in 1830.
4. The first successful transatlantic steam ship was the SS Great Britain, launched in 1843 which made its maiden voyage in 1845.

There was a gap of some 18 years between the ending of the slave trade and the opening of a railway in the coal fields of the northeast and nearly a quarter of a century before a railway reached a significant sea port. It was another 15 years before the first steam ship was built and another 15 before steam ships became commercially effective.

Fully agreed with both, there’s far too little attention paid to Britain’s role as abolitionists when looking at the Atlantic slave trade as a whole. Of course this is an inconvenient truth in light of the political agenda being pushed (especially once you realise the BLM is a self styled extreme left political movement with the avowed aim of “dismantling capitalism”).

It was a huge industry, I would have thought...most people would be pretty au fait with the idea that if you took 100 industrialists in the 1800s, up tio half of them would have made money in some way or other linked to the slave trade?

You would think so wouldn’t you!? I’m not sure we really need yet more woke revisionist naval gazing and national self flagellation over things that happened over two hundred years ago.

 

[43066]

Fully agreed with both, there’s far too little attention paid to Britain’s role as abolitionists when looking at the Atlantic slave trade as a whole. Of course this is an inconvenient truth in light of the political agenda being pushed (especially once you realise the BLM is a self styled extreme left political movement with the avowed aim of “dismantling capitalism”).




You would think so wouldn’t you!? I’m not sure we really need yet more woke revisionist naval gazing and national self flagellation over things that happened over two hundred years ago.

*navel gazing

 

[GatwickDepress]

Actually it wasn't "the Belgians", rather it was King Leopold II who was the personal owner of the Congo Free State until popular opinion, as you say, forced the Belgian state to take over the running of the country in 1909.
Leopold hired adventurers and mercenaries to help him subdue and loot the Congo, one of the leaders being Henry Morton Stanley of "Dr Livingstone, I presume?" fame, but otherwise of highly dubious practices with links to the Arab slavers.
The good burghers of Denbigh have recently voted to keep its statue of Stanley, one of its own.

There's much in this thread about the current generation not being responsible for the faults of past generations, but it must be acknowledged that today's British standard of living and historic wealth is in no small measure due to the profits of colonialism, including slavery and the looting of resources in the empire.
That wealth found its way into estates, industrial and trade development, shipping and into our biggest port cities (notably London, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow), and the early canals and railways were part of this.
It might reasonably be argued that the British exploitation of its colonies was more principled than that of other powers, but that doesn't absolve us from responsibility for our government's policies and actions over the years.
There's a tendency to promote the good bits and ignore/deny the bad bits of our history.

My apologies, I defer to your superior knowledge of that era, and thank you for taking the time to type that out. It was very interesting.

 

[WesternLancer]

I won't need to when I hear of activities like this

(I'm not able to copy and paste the entire article)

Israel's ambassador to the UK is evacuated from LSE by security guards

Home Secretary Priti Patel, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi blasted the 'aggressive and threatening behaviour' towards Tzipi Hotovely in London last night.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Which is not the first time wokery tried to censor free speech and intimidate those that opposes their views.

It is a discredited movement.

With respect you are varying the point at issue

just to recap:

1. You said along lines of 'no one has mentioned that slaves were sold by their own people to westerners'
2. A response was posted citing several posts in the thread that mentioned just that
3. You said 'Too Long didn't read' ("TLDR")
4. My response as per your quote relates to that remark.

If you are not even going to read the thread you have commented on because it's too long, you are not going to find the things you say have not been said - as well as not come across as a very interested person.

My response was nothing to do with what might have happened at the LSE - if you don't like what some people in universities do (which is nothing to do with this railway related research) I suggest that is off topic and something for another thread.

 

[DarloRich]

Fully agreed with both, there’s far too little attention paid to Britain’s role as abolitionists when looking at the Atlantic slave trade as a whole. Of course this is an inconvenient truth in light of the political agenda being pushed

But you cant have it both ways. You cant say the British are wonderful for abolishing the slave trade without saying the same British people also made a fortune out of the triangular trade.

I would say Wilberforce IS lauded for his role as a leading abolitionist. However, there seems to be a group of people who are unable to acknowledge that there is a double sided coin in relation to slavery and don't want to look at the other side which is much more grubby. I don't understand why.

 

[trebor79]

Indeed. I don't understand why so many people are against the less salubrious elements of history being brought to light and examined academically. There's a lot of tilting at windmills going on here.

There's nothing wrong with that. What I object to is looking at those times through the prism of modern (and usually fairly left/"liberal" at that) morals. Even worse when that then morphs into a boring lecture about how we all need to apologise for stuff that happened centuries ago.
Just ridiculous, boring, irrelevant naval gazing.

 

[DarloRich]

morphs into a boring lecture about how we all need to apologise for stuff that happened centuries ago

While I would not be minded to apologise as I think it would be almost meaningless I think there is a debate to be had about that.

 

[Senex]

They have mentioned it up thread. And as I stated - covered in detail on TV a few weeks ago on a prime time c4 programme. You not seeing it does not mean it is has not been mentioned....

Have you got a name for the programme or perhaps its compiler? I haven't found anything via "Search" on All4 yet.

There was a very interesteding article back in 2019 in The Wall Street Journal (20/21 September 2019) on the same subject, "When the slave traders were African" by a Nigerian writer, Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani. Unfortunately it's behind one of those newspaper pay-walls, but it can be found quoted by others.

On a different point that has been raised. We're told that in 1837 the British government raised £20M in loans to pay the compensation to the British slave-owners and that this debt was apparently not fully paid off until 2015. Presumably that means the ordinary British taxpayer was contributing over many years to the interest-payments on these loans and thus having to fund the compensation for the former slave-owners—a relatively small group in relation to the entire population.