A little Vloging around Bristol showcasing the slave owner's houses who used to live here and own people. Twitter - / badmouse101 Patreon - / badmouse Find out more: www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/
For those watching 2019 onwards. Important thing I forgot to mention is that Queen Square 7:04 is not the same Queen Square as in the 1800's. In 1831 there was a big riot in the city and many of the buildings in the square were destroyed. All of the rich people fled to Clifton and the area became a shithole. Then in the 30's they built a main road straight through it, Yes thats right. At the turn of the century as part of general Urban renewal they restored it to how it looked when it was built. It is highly probable then that some of the slave owners houses were destroyed and thus we can't located them very easily.
Showing how mundane it was to own slaves in the early modern period is something vitally needed in today's discourse on the subject. Dressing it up with a local tour helps too. Local history has a way of being more personable. Great job on this! Hopefully you don't get hammered by the troglodytes who dwell in the comments section of slavery history videos.
@@john-lenin considering the circumstances we'd say it's worked out as good as it can. As an obsolete and discarded labour class the politics of victimization is probably one of the only lifelines that has kept us from just being outright obliterated (via genocide), deported (forcefully) or assimilated (gentrified and interbred). If right wingers got their way all of the above would be happening instead of just the latter two.
This video is really cool, and a really good idea to have an on the ground look at the real places built by slavery! I think in the context of your other videos it's easy to infer your moral position on this, but to someone who hadn't seen any of your others ones I'm curious about whether talking about middle class slave owners and the understandability of the profit motive - without having an explicit moral condemnation of enjoying the ill-gotten wealth of slavery - could the first half of this video be read as trying to morally shrug it off and say "that's just how things were back then?" It kinda seems like slavery is just a thing that happened, rather than an unjustifiable horror that people deliberately chose to engage in? I dunno, I just worry that's how someone who didn't watch any of your other videos might read it... I think "good to their slaves" should be in massive quotes too - you can't be well-treated and be enslaved. Also, in the bit where you talk about the abolitionist pressures and the economic pressures I wonder if there could have been a bit more there about the slaves revolting, to tell a version of that story that restores a bit of agency to people like Sam Sharpe, fighting for their own freedom? These are meant to be constructive points though, I do like the video!
" It kinda seems like slavery is just a thing that happened, rather than an unjustifiable horror that people deliberately chose to engage in? " Serious question, have you ever read a history book? Because it doesn't matter how much you try to revise history, it was a thing that just happened. Every major civilization throughout history had a massive slave trade and their civilizations were built by slaves. Whether it was the ancient greeks, the romans, the ancient egyptians, the mongolian empire, the arabs, the aztecs, etc. The way was paved for the transatlantic slave trade by the trans-saharan slave trade, both of which used abrahamic religion as justification, the africans were the descendants of ham, there was the table of nations, etc. So yes, it was just a normal thing in the world to have slaves, especially when there was no globalism, there was no long range communication past letters, when tribalism was so much more easily justified and people can be seen as "the other", when the bible was seen as infallible. Back when the only way to build an empire was through slave labour because no population was big enough to do it themselves. So no, back then it wasn't an unjustifiable horror that people chose to engage it, it was how the world worked.
+oBLACKIECHANoo Something can be totally normalized AND an unjustifiable horror that people choose to engage in. For modern equivalents, see: sweatshops, factory farming, and oil. These are all institutions that I would consider unjustifiable horrors, yet I freely support almost daily them because they are more convenient than the alternatives.
+Tyler Graham I never said it wasn't horrible, but it being normalized meant it wasn't an unjustifiable horrible thing to the people who partook in it, it was everyday life and just how the world worked and so looking back in hindsight and shit talking these historical figures as if it puts us on a moral high ground is absurd. You might as well talk about how retarded they were for not understanding quantum mechanics too.
Well today many members of what you'd call the middle class invest in the stock market online, perhaps they invest in companies that use sweatshops, companies that hire death squads to crush unions. I guess if you were to choose a modern day equivalent that would be it; difference is that back then you would have had to inconvenience yourself a bit more to buy a slave and investing in unethical business stocks online could be done without being aware of the injustice being carried out (meanwhile buying slaves is very obviously unethical)
The vast majority of the stock market is actually owned by the 1%. I mean like almost all of it. This is why the Stock Market has been ballooning. US executives compensation since the 1990s as well became more and more stock options. Ok back to the issue of slavery. In the US we have white washed indentured. We acknowledge that black slavery was wrong but we really do not come to grips that all of it was about cheap labor. So let us take morality out of it for a moment and think like a capitalist. Indentured, Chattel, and Wage. Three forms of slavery. Hold on ancaps ... wait for it. Indentured. In the American Colonies and am I am not excluding the rest of the British Colonies not enough workers existed for the demand. So indentured was encouraged. Btw early blacks were in fact indentured. Half to 2/3rds of white immigrants were indentured for various reasons. What is the upside of this? Well you get labor for X number of years. What is the downside of this? Well it has a huge cost upfront and then an ongoing cost of housing and food. Not to mention the sweet old cookie you may or may not give at the end of their contract for being a dick to them all those years. These are all costs you have to consider during their contract. You cannot just fire them if they are not producing because you are out of your investment. Plus they may die because you worked them too hard and thus you lose your investment. If they run away though they could easily disappear into the communities at large. It would be harder to retrieve them. Hey we are looking for a Willie Horton? Nope, no Willie Horton here. John Smith but no Willie Horton. Ummm alright and off you go. So now let us look at chattel. What is the upside? Well you get the labor for life and thus make all costs cheaper. Instead of 7 years of labor you could get several decades of labor and thus spread the costs out far. If they run away they are much easier to find. Hey we are looking for Willie Horton? You look out and see that one black guy in the crowd. Doh, there he is!! I can also lease their labor out after harvest and planting. What is the downside? It has much of the same downsides as indentured. You have the initial investment, ie the mortgage paid on the lifetime of labor. You have the ongoing of housing and food. You still have the issue of can't fire them or if they die. You also have the risk of revolt and hatred of their owners which even though they may be easier to find if running away the rate of runaway could as well be cost prohibitive. South Carolina was 80% chattel. Before I move on, I want to state justification for and against was very biblical. At least here in the States. Puritans were largely against. Even indentured was low in the north and btw not all in New England were Puritan. Half the Mayflower for example were not Puritans. Anglicans largely made up the southern states so it had a much higher indentured per capita. Most indentures were field labor with the rest being artisans. Black Africans they could biblically justify making them chattel. It was an easily seen "other" whereas sectarian division which existed was not apparent so much up front. Wage Capitalists sugar coats this a lot but that is because with the advent of the labor movement, unions, and social reforms putting pressure on govt to enact labor regulations has made them be kinder. What is the upside? No upfront costs. No housing or food costs. I can fire you for not producing at little to no loss to me. If you run away who gives a shit. There is another boat tomorrow arriving with more immigrants who are willing to work for those wages. Downside? Not having enough workers to make profit. I am not making money for a vacant seat. Workers may riot claiming unfair treatment, those ungrateful bastards. I might have to throw a bone to those ungrateful bastards periodically so they think I give a shit about them. Regardless wage labor is the cheapest form because it incurs the least amount of upfront costs to you the Capitalist.
Yea in non European countries. And the small underground in European countries are generally by non european countries themselves theres been a nice uptick though with all those islamic migrants you idiots let.
I believe I heard a quote once - 'before the slave trade was ended, half the houses in Bristol had been built with the blood of slaves as the mortar'. Still mildly better than the US where the entire country was built on slavery.
Benito Mussolini No, some of the first slaves in North America were working for the Puritans in Massachucetts. The North had widespread slavery until after the Great American Awakening and the growth of industrial labour, roundabout the turn of the 19th century.
Similar to how many British industries were roped into the slave trade (as described in the video), US industries in the north benefited from slavery in other parts of the US.
+Comrade Kalinin Kalinych ofc they're the high top canvas shoes that are popular with teens who would be just getting into politics and therefore kind of ignorant. No coincidence that the "Karl Marx backpack" is right next to it on the store page. I need a Stalin woodchipper to throw all this shit into.
Couldn't have said better, now off to buy a signed toothbrush collection with Marxist-Sargonist's Sargon's face on them, since that obviously makes me look valid, like a nice self-respecting Socialist, right?
"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them" "a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation" "a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something" These are all definitions of "slave" Sounds eerily familiar to being a worker under capitalism
Funny thing, if you play the Grand-Strategy game Europa Universalis IV (which prides itself on historical simulation), (set 1444-1821) it hardly makes slavery seem like it was a big industry at all; if you colonize Africa a few plots will produce "Slaves" as a trade good, but it worth hardly any money. And if you abolish slavery there is a good chance you will make more money, because the provinces will magically begin producing a new trade good (often "exotic" goods, sometimes even gold) that make you even more money. The game gives you no indication that the slave trade was a profit driven industry, and never makes the player make a hard choice between making money and sparing human lives (in regards to slavery). Then again this is the same company that outright refuses to address the Nazi's racial and genocidal policies in it's WWII history simulators (Hearts of Iron).
I can see why someone making a WWII grand strategy game may want to pussyfoot around the Holocaust, but around slavery? I've never heard someone say slavery was unprofitable, but then again I've never been around pro-slavery/slavery apologist circles.
You get some events in the game telling you the "Triangle Trade" has started, and explaining what it is, but there is no in game mechanics that simulate its economic effects, despite an (otherwise) very detailed simulation simulation of European colonization of America and Africa. If you ban the slave trade it has very little effect on your economy or colonies. In fact the game never seems to address where the slaves you are selling go, as they are treated like a consumable trade good like wool, salt, or fish. In fact, if you choose to play as the USA post independence, you get no indication that about 1/4 of your population is Black slaves, that half of your nations production relies on slave labor, or indeed any indication that slavery is even a issue, despite being a very divisive issue among the founders as early as the writing of the constitution.
The majority of (USA) slaves were owned by, I think a very small portion of the population, that is true, though what i would say to them is that it does not make it any less evil, any more than the fact that only a small part of the population are members of the bourgeois/owner class would somehow make capitalism any less exploitative. In that case it is not a matter of how many people own slaves, as how many slaves are owned. In many southern states the actual majority of the population were slaves, (and to this day the majority of those states are African descendants of those slaves) and it, in fact, displays an even greater injustice that the majority of said state's population ("property") were owned by a small bourgeois aristocracy, who helped keep that population in check by turning the white proletariat against them (the majority of soldiers in the Confederacy were, indeed, poverty stricken non-slave owning whites) by convincing them they were at the very least better off then their black counterparts. It is classic capitalist divisive "identity politics" tactics used to undermine the proletariat.
While EU4 probably downplays slavery, getting more gold by abolishing slavery might make sense. Slaves depresses the free man's wages, which means he buys less, and hence less taxes and tariffs for the government.
Of course, though, it makes the whole war feel like its just a another land grab between three coalitions, and not that there was serious bad shit within the philosophies and policies of the Fascists, as well as the French and English Imperialists, as well as nearly every power great power involved; in fact they barely touch the the struggles of India for independence of this period, as India is just well British resources for England to hurl at Europe. I think part of the reason the game has such popularity with modern "white nationalists" is because it allows them to play some power fantasy of "nordic world supremacy" without having to face the brutal atrocities of 20th century nationalism.
I actually really loved this style of video! I'm Canadian and have only visited England once in my life so it was very interesting to come along on this walking tour of British history with you. Seeing the actual homes and streets and industries that were essentially built and supported by slave labour really helps in understanding the toxic impact of captialism in a rather nuanced way. Thanks!
Love it. This is going under my favourites. I read a book called the rent trap and I associate landlords as modern day slave owners. Even the companies we work for are the same. Hence my belief in Cooperatives. Owning the means of production, distribution and consumption. Thank you. Your videos are just excellent.
@A A so you frequent Right Wing, neoliberal, racists for information and left wing social progressives? Agreeing with nothing, contributing nothing... besides condemnations. How virtuous of you. You sure are fair and balanced...
I also live in Bristol, and walk about. The difference between us is, I'm always drinking, because I'm a dick, and I don't record the things I say, because everything I say is stupid.
I had no idea more "regular" people owned slaves as well in Britain. Excellent video comrade, lovely research. Also, what the fuck was that at the end. Holy shit.
This video was quite nice because of the format. You went around your native Bristol and reflected on the capitalist state of the town and looked at everyday things from a Marxist anti-capitalist angle. You should do videos like these more often, many people are unaware of what goes on around us everyday that is the result of capitalism, consumerism and exploitation and applying such ideas to things we interact with and see everyday will help us look at the state of our world more critically and with a more open mind. Keep it up!
ever think of doing a video about cuba or anything related to the cuban revolution? (i know there's other ones like sandino's revolution, but just asking)
This is a good video, it's much more interesting as a vlog. I think slavery can be compared to the meat/animal trade today in it's importance in our economy atm and why that makes people reluctant to end it
Well there's that, then there's the fact that people like me have meat based metabolisms which require us to eat meat at least once every few days or else we constantly feel weak and tired. Not to mention my hereditary tendency towards vitamin B deficiency which gives everyone in my family violent mood swings unless we either regularly take B-12 supplements or just eat a high-meat diet.
Hi Badmouse, I wrote my dissertation on Britain's enforcement of abolition and I thought I'd offer some points. Your analysis of abolition seems to come directly from Eric Williams - who, in neo-Marxian analysis entitled 'Capitalism and Slavery' (the title of your video), offered an explanatory model which attacked the motives of the abolitionists and argued that slavery was a phase of commercial capitalism which aroused opposition only when it had ceased to perform its economic function. Whilst this was influential, it was written in 1944 and is somewhat outdated in a historiographical sense. I'd recommend picking up Seymour Drescher's 'Econocide: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition'. Drescher proves that Britain's imperial economy took a significant hit as a result of abolition, and the work of Chaim Kaufmann and Robert Pape has found that, in relative terms, abolition and its enforcement (during which over 150'000 Africans were freed from transportation across the Atlantic) was the costliest moral action in modern history by a state. Ultimately there were genuine humanitarian intentions at all levels of British society, and it would be wrong to dismiss the whole thing simply as a result of economic requirement.
I feel its wrong to dismiss it as one or the other the fact that slavery was becoming less profitable contributed to it being abolished along with a backlash from the public and slaves this is similar to smoking being limited to public spaces as its profit for the government was reducing but it was also a backlash from the public
Disclaimer: this is not a "pat ourselves on the back" comment. For anyone interested, the case of Somerset v Stewart is a famous and fascinating one in English legal history in which the invocation of habeus corpus on behalf of a slave (James Somerset) imprisoned on a ship led to the legal recognition [in England] of slaves as people, not property.
Indeed, I believe that this judgement was made in around 1772? The legality use of African slaves in the British Isles (as opposed to the wider Empire) had been inconclusive in the 1600s and 1700s, with different Judges making different judgements based on their interpretation of the law. I believe that there were between 5000 and 10,000 African slaves in the British Isles by 1772 (and an additional 5000 free Africans), the vast majority of them being employed as domestic servants, some of whom had been successfully freed by individual judgements before 1772.
BadMouse, will you please debate Destiny? I like a lot of the ideas surrounding AnCom, but have a lot of pragmatic reservations about it's implementation in the United States (or other capitalist societies). I think that you make a lot of good points, but would like to see some of these incompatibilities fleshed out. Thanks my dude, keep up the good work.
This was really insightful. Great vid. Show how the money in out pockets could be used to better the human race if only it wasn't always burning a hole in my pocket.
Now instead of having to work or not be given food by our owners, we have to work or not be given currency with which to purchase food by our owners. Progress is fun.
They literally enslaved the proletariat in some regions, saying the parents sold their babies to the coal mine or bourgeoisie owner: "Scottish miners had been bonded to their "maisters" by a 1606 Act "Anent Coalyers and Salters". A Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775, recognised this to be "a state of slavery and bondage" and formally abolished it; this was made effective by a further law in 1799.[21][22]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining
Hey man, love your channel! A question I have (and you might have already answered it) is whether or not you think the Soviet Union was better than cold war America? If you can answer, great! If not, oh well.
You should make a video about how the state in western capitalist countries can take your property (right now) through "Civil asset forfeiture" and "Eminent Domian".
Hey (this isn't about of the video but still) so I'm new here and all this interests me but a lot of it is going over my head, can someone point me in the direction of socialism 101? Or where I can start to learn more about the stuff talked about on this channel? Currently I vote NDP in Canada but lean further left than them, however I also don't agree with everything on this channel probably because I don't know about what BadMouse is talking about. Anything would be helpful, thanks in advance :)
There are some of Badmouse's videos that are pretty socialism 101-ish. Look at his videos explaining class, private property, capitalisms death toll, and "the divided Island", and the ones about collectivism and cooperatives. There are probably more videos, but I can't remember. The videos should be easy to find, I don't have time to link them, sorry. They're really good for understanding basic socialism/anarchism. Good luck, comrade!
BadMouseProductions Great, but disturbing video. I'm a Brit too. Question: Is it me, or does Paul Joseph Watson look like Jeane Kirkpatrick? Jeane Duane Kirkpatrick (née Jordan; November 19, 1926 - December 7, 2006) was an American diplomat and political scientist. An ardent anticommunist, she was a longtime Democrat who became a Republican in 1985. After serving as Ronald Reagan's foreign policy adviser in his 1980 campaign, she became the first woman to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations. She was known for the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine", which advocated supporting authoritarian regimes around the world if they went along with Washington's aims. She believed that they could be led into democracy by example. She wrote, "Traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies."
That's the worst analogy i've ever heard. When slaves were bought, the buyer paid the owner, not the slave. When you get an employee as an employer, you pay the person who is asking for work...
+Cú_ Mara People only sign such 'contracts' because they have to, because the capitalists' hoarding of essential resources leaves them with little option. That's not really 'willing' as far as I'm concerned.
You are kind of right. It is more like rent-a-serf or something like that than straight slavery. Long before this, people did work to survive (hunt, farm, fish, forage, etc) but they were not working for someone else to make out better than themselves nor did much of the resources (land, materials, tools, etc) "belong" to a relative few. Now, it resembles a "nicer" feudal system where one is born into the world but the resources/means are controlled by other individuals, sort of lesser "nobles" for their own gain. It has been rendered more difficult if not impossible to do anything, especially life necessities, without having some master determining whether or not you can get them. Land/means is owned by others, so no legal hunting/gardening/foraging/fishing/residing/etc for you. Most of us are born in a kind of serfdom, it seems.
+Cobi Lancaster 'When you get an employee as an employer, you pay the person who is asking for work' ... and who is only put in a position of having to ask you for work because you (along with everyone else who owns the means of production, collectively) hoard essential resources and are backed up by the violence of the state in so doing.
For those watching 2019 onwards. Important thing I forgot to mention is that Queen Square 7:04 is not the same Queen Square as in the 1800's.
In 1831 there was a big riot in the city and many of the buildings in the square were destroyed. All of the rich people fled to Clifton and the area became a shithole. Then in the 30's they built a main road straight through it, Yes thats right.
At the turn of the century as part of general Urban renewal they restored it to how it looked when it was built.
It is highly probable then that some of the slave owners houses were destroyed and thus we can't located them very easily.
"I might be a bit nicer to my slaves"
- Badmouse, 2017
@A A Wah wah
Showing how mundane it was to own slaves in the early modern period is something vitally needed in today's discourse on the subject. Dressing it up with a local tour helps too. Local history has a way of being more personable.
Great job on this! Hopefully you don't get hammered by the troglodytes who dwell in the comments section of slavery history videos.
The Cynical Historian Yeah, the Politics of Victimization is working out so well for black people everywhere.
@@john-lenin considering the circumstances we'd say it's worked out as good as it can.
As an obsolete and discarded labour class the politics of victimization is probably one of the only lifelines
that has kept us from just being outright obliterated (via genocide), deported (forcefully) or assimilated (gentrified and interbred).
If right wingers got their way all of the above would be happening instead of just the latter two.
This video is really cool, and a really good idea to have an on the ground look at the real places built by slavery!
I think in the context of your other videos it's easy to infer your moral position on this, but to someone who hadn't seen any of your others ones I'm curious about whether talking about middle class slave owners and the understandability of the profit motive - without having an explicit moral condemnation of enjoying the ill-gotten wealth of slavery - could the first half of this video be read as trying to morally shrug it off and say "that's just how things were back then?" It kinda seems like slavery is just a thing that happened, rather than an unjustifiable horror that people deliberately chose to engage in? I dunno, I just worry that's how someone who didn't watch any of your other videos might read it...
I think "good to their slaves" should be in massive quotes too - you can't be well-treated and be enslaved. Also, in the bit where you talk about the abolitionist pressures and the economic pressures I wonder if there could have been a bit more there about the slaves revolting, to tell a version of that story that restores a bit of agency to people like Sam Sharpe, fighting for their own freedom?
These are meant to be constructive points though, I do like the video!
" It kinda seems like slavery is just a thing that happened, rather than an unjustifiable horror that people deliberately chose to engage in? "
Serious question, have you ever read a history book? Because it doesn't matter how much you try to revise history, it was a thing that just happened. Every major civilization throughout history had a massive slave trade and their civilizations were built by slaves. Whether it was the ancient greeks, the romans, the ancient egyptians, the mongolian empire, the arabs, the aztecs, etc. The way was paved for the transatlantic slave trade by the trans-saharan slave trade, both of which used abrahamic religion as justification, the africans were the descendants of ham, there was the table of nations, etc. So yes, it was just a normal thing in the world to have slaves, especially when there was no globalism, there was no long range communication past letters, when tribalism was so much more easily justified and people can be seen as "the other", when the bible was seen as infallible. Back when the only way to build an empire was through slave labour because no population was big enough to do it themselves.
So no, back then it wasn't an unjustifiable horror that people chose to engage it, it was how the world worked.
+oBLACKIECHANoo Something can be totally normalized AND an unjustifiable horror that people choose to engage in. For modern equivalents, see: sweatshops, factory farming, and oil. These are all institutions that I would consider unjustifiable horrors, yet I freely support almost daily them because they are more convenient than the alternatives.
+Tyler Graham I never said it wasn't horrible, but it being normalized meant it wasn't an unjustifiable horrible thing to the people who partook in it, it was everyday life and just how the world worked and so looking back in hindsight and shit talking these historical figures as if it puts us on a moral high ground is absurd. You might as well talk about how retarded they were for not understanding quantum mechanics too.
Well today many members of what you'd call the middle class invest in the stock market online, perhaps they invest in companies that use sweatshops, companies that hire death squads to crush unions. I guess if you were to choose a modern day equivalent that would be it; difference is that back then you would have had to inconvenience yourself a bit more to buy a slave and investing in unethical business stocks online could be done without being aware of the injustice being carried out (meanwhile buying slaves is very obviously unethical)
The vast majority of the stock market is actually owned by the 1%. I mean like almost all of it. This is why the Stock Market has been ballooning. US executives compensation since the 1990s as well became more and more stock options.
Ok back to the issue of slavery. In the US we have white washed indentured. We acknowledge that black slavery was wrong but we really do not come to grips that all of it was about cheap labor.
So let us take morality out of it for a moment and think like a capitalist. Indentured, Chattel, and Wage. Three forms of slavery. Hold on ancaps ... wait for it.
Indentured. In the American Colonies and am I am not excluding the rest of the British Colonies not enough workers existed for the demand. So indentured was encouraged. Btw early blacks were in fact indentured. Half to 2/3rds of white immigrants were indentured for various reasons.
What is the upside of this? Well you get labor for X number of years.
What is the downside of this? Well it has a huge cost upfront and then an ongoing cost of housing and food. Not to mention the sweet old cookie you may or may not give at the end of their contract for being a dick to them all those years. These are all costs you have to consider during their contract. You cannot just fire them if they are not producing because you are out of your investment. Plus they may die because you worked them too hard and thus you lose your investment. If they run away though they could easily disappear into the communities at large. It would be harder to retrieve them. Hey we are looking for a Willie Horton? Nope, no Willie Horton here. John Smith but no Willie Horton. Ummm alright and off you go.
So now let us look at chattel.
What is the upside? Well you get the labor for life and thus make all costs cheaper. Instead of 7 years of labor you could get several decades of labor and thus spread the costs out far. If they run away they are much easier to find. Hey we are looking for Willie Horton? You look out and see that one black guy in the crowd. Doh, there he is!! I can also lease their labor out after harvest and planting.
What is the downside? It has much of the same downsides as indentured. You have the initial investment, ie the mortgage paid on the lifetime of labor. You have the ongoing of housing and food. You still have the issue of can't fire them or if they die. You also have the risk of revolt and hatred of their owners which even though they may be easier to find if running away the rate of runaway could as well be cost prohibitive. South Carolina was 80% chattel.
Before I move on, I want to state justification for and against was very biblical. At least here in the States. Puritans were largely against. Even indentured was low in the north and btw not all in New England were Puritan. Half the Mayflower for example were not Puritans. Anglicans largely made up the southern states so it had a much higher indentured per capita. Most indentures were field labor with the rest being artisans. Black Africans they could biblically justify making them chattel. It was an easily seen "other" whereas sectarian division which existed was not apparent so much up front.
Wage
Capitalists sugar coats this a lot but that is because with the advent of the labor movement, unions, and social reforms putting pressure on govt to enact labor regulations has made them be kinder.
What is the upside? No upfront costs. No housing or food costs. I can fire you for not producing at little to no loss to me. If you run away who gives a shit. There is another boat tomorrow arriving with more immigrants who are willing to work for those wages.
Downside? Not having enough workers to make profit. I am not making money for a vacant seat. Workers may riot claiming unfair treatment, those ungrateful bastards. I might have to throw a bone to those ungrateful bastards periodically so they think I give a shit about them.
Regardless wage labor is the cheapest form because it incurs the least amount of upfront costs to you the Capitalist.
"We don’t really need to own people anymore, we just have to rent them"
T T
notice how we still have sex slavery today.
I know right
Yea in non European countries. And the small underground in European countries are generally by non european countries themselves theres been a nice uptick though with all those islamic migrants you idiots let.
Cú_ Mara error 404: citation needed
You're asking for a citation from a neo-Nazi? You dont understand neo-Nazism then...
Cú_ Mara Are you lost? Did you stray too far from your circlejerk or something?
*People focusing on historical slavery would do well in turning their attention towards the sickening extent of the modern slave trade!*
I believe I heard a quote once - 'before the slave trade was ended, half the houses in Bristol had been built with the blood of slaves as the mortar'.
Still mildly better than the US where the entire country was built on slavery.
The Rat
Still is, looks at the industrial prison complex
Only the South had Slavery
Benito Mussolini No, some of the first slaves in North America were working for the Puritans in Massachucetts. The North had widespread slavery until after the Great American Awakening and the growth of industrial labour, roundabout the turn of the 19th century.
Similar to how many British industries were roped into the slave trade (as described in the video), US industries in the north benefited from slavery in other parts of the US.
+The Rat It wasn't. You can say that, in a metaphorical sense. But not a literal one.
People just keep bastardizing Che's image and use it for products and marketing, is there any greater insult to a socialist?
I guess you haven't heard of the Marx shoes then.
It perfect mockery of a massmurderer tbh
+Comrade Kalinin Kalinych
ofc they're the high top canvas shoes that are popular with teens who would be just getting into politics and therefore kind of ignorant. No coincidence that the "Karl Marx backpack" is right next to it on the store page. I need a Stalin woodchipper to throw all this shit into.
Couldn't have said better, now off to buy a signed toothbrush collection with Marxist-Sargonist's Sargon's face on them, since that obviously makes me look valid, like a nice self-respecting Socialist, right?
+M. N. Odenheimer
Far better than getting it from a company with sweatshops in southern Asia.
"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them"
"a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation"
"a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something"
These are all definitions of "slave"
Sounds eerily familiar to being a worker under capitalism
Both capitalism and corporatism makes slaves of us all.
Nathan Woerpel yet they like to support it.
Sounds even more like being a worker under socialism.
I honestly don't give a fuck about China or India. I live in America.
@@rustyshackelford6834 kek
I really like this style, BadMouse, I thought it was interesting and helpful to see the locations to illustrate.
Funny thing, if you play the Grand-Strategy game Europa Universalis IV (which prides itself on historical simulation), (set 1444-1821) it hardly makes slavery seem like it was a big industry at all; if you colonize Africa a few plots will produce "Slaves" as a trade good, but it worth hardly any money. And if you abolish slavery there is a good chance you will make more money, because the provinces will magically begin producing a new trade good (often "exotic" goods, sometimes even gold) that make you even more money. The game gives you no indication that the slave trade was a profit driven industry, and never makes the player make a hard choice between making money and sparing human lives (in regards to slavery). Then again this is the same company that outright refuses to address the Nazi's racial and genocidal policies in it's WWII history simulators (Hearts of Iron).
I can see why someone making a WWII grand strategy game may want to pussyfoot around the Holocaust, but around slavery? I've never heard someone say slavery was unprofitable, but then again I've never been around pro-slavery/slavery apologist circles.
You get some events in the game telling you the "Triangle Trade" has started, and explaining what it is, but there is no in game mechanics that simulate its economic effects, despite an (otherwise) very detailed simulation simulation of European colonization of America and Africa. If you ban the slave trade it has very little effect on your economy or colonies. In fact the game never seems to address where the slaves you are selling go, as they are treated like a consumable trade good like wool, salt, or fish. In fact, if you choose to play as the USA post independence, you get no indication that about 1/4 of your population is Black slaves, that half of your nations production relies on slave labor, or indeed any indication that slavery is even a issue, despite being a very divisive issue among the founders as early as the writing of the constitution.
The majority of (USA) slaves were owned by, I think a very small portion of the population, that is true, though what i would say to them is that it does not make it any less evil, any more than the fact that only a small part of the population are members of the bourgeois/owner class would somehow make capitalism any less exploitative. In that case it is not a matter of how many people own slaves, as how many slaves are owned. In many southern states the actual majority of the population were slaves, (and to this day the majority of those states are African descendants of those slaves) and it, in fact, displays an even greater injustice that the majority of said state's population ("property") were owned by a small bourgeois aristocracy, who helped keep that population in check by turning the white proletariat against them (the majority of soldiers in the Confederacy were, indeed, poverty stricken non-slave owning whites) by convincing them they were at the very least better off then their black counterparts. It is classic capitalist divisive "identity politics" tactics used to undermine the proletariat.
While EU4 probably downplays slavery, getting more gold by abolishing slavery might make sense. Slaves depresses the free man's wages, which means he buys less, and hence less taxes and tariffs for the government.
Of course, though, it makes the whole war feel like its just a another land grab between three coalitions, and not that there was serious bad shit within the philosophies and policies of the Fascists, as well as the French and English Imperialists, as well as nearly every power great power involved; in fact they barely touch the the struggles of India for independence of this period, as India is just well British resources for England to hurl at Europe. I think part of the reason the game has such popularity with modern "white nationalists" is because it allows them to play some power fantasy of "nordic world supremacy" without having to face the brutal atrocities of 20th century nationalism.
I actually really loved this style of video! I'm Canadian and have only visited England once in my life so it was very interesting to come along on this walking tour of British history with you. Seeing the actual homes and streets and industries that were essentially built and supported by slave labour really helps in understanding the toxic impact of captialism in a rather nuanced way. Thanks!
Really great video man best one to date. Keep up the good work.
Huh, I squatted a building right by that first building about seven years ago.
I think this is one of your best videos. Really enjoyed the format.
--dirak
Very good video. Tank you for uploading.
Amazing video keep up the good work!
You're doing excellent work. Thanks.
keep makin these amazing videos badmouse, there are people out there (like myself) who really fuckin appreciate it
Love it. This is going under my favourites. I read a book called the rent trap and I associate landlords as modern day slave owners. Even the companies we work for are the same. Hence my belief in Cooperatives. Owning the means of production, distribution and consumption.
Thank you. Your videos are just excellent.
High Quality video.
Some people find it awkward to vlog in public like this. Did you? You had good voice projection.
That was an excellent video. Unfortunately, TH-cam decided to autoplay a Stephan Molyneux video right after.
@A A so you frequent Right Wing, neoliberal, racists for information and left wing social progressives? Agreeing with nothing, contributing nothing... besides condemnations.
How virtuous of you. You sure are fair and balanced...
This is quite an interesting style for videos. I like it. If you ever have another topic that you can take a field trip for, please do so!
Don't usually agree with your vids but this is one of the best you've made tbh.
Amazing video
A good video, no one is really free of blame. The end is priceless!
Nice video man
I've long been suspicious about Mr Whippy ice cream vans.
All my comrades are welcome in my commune.
Great work! Sharing :-)
I like your sweater/cardigan, and also your video
Good one badmouse
You look just like Jack Nicholson. Also that tour was very informative, and also, that billboard was very funny.
No wonder the slave owners were also Tory MPs such as Edward Colston
Yay, surprise field trip video.
I wonder if there are walking tours about this. Would be fascinating to go through Bristol and uncover its connection to slavery.
A most unexpected tour of Bristol...I rather enjoyed it. :)
That sweater looks so comfy.
Let's be honest, "capitalism and slavery" is a tautology
That's a beautiful cardigan!
I also live in Bristol, and walk about. The difference between us is, I'm always drinking, because I'm a dick, and I don't record the things I say, because everything I say is stupid.
I had no idea more "regular" people owned slaves as well in Britain.
Excellent video comrade, lovely research.
Also, what the fuck was that at the end. Holy shit.
I like how you showed all aspect of slavery
This video was quite nice because of the format. You went around your native Bristol and reflected on the capitalist state of the town and looked at everyday things from a Marxist anti-capitalist angle. You should do videos like these more often, many people are unaware of what goes on around us everyday that is the result of capitalism, consumerism and exploitation and applying such ideas to things we interact with and see everyday will help us look at the state of our world more critically and with a more open mind. Keep it up!
ever think of doing a video about cuba or anything related to the cuban revolution? (i know there's other ones like sandino's revolution, but just asking)
cool! nice vid
Akala - ps. I forgot to mention that Akala has his own TH-cam channel and since recently coming across him I just can't get enough of him.
This is a good video, it's much more interesting as a vlog. I think slavery can be compared to the meat/animal trade today in it's importance in our economy atm and why that makes people reluctant to end it
Well there's that, then there's the fact that people like me have meat based metabolisms which require us to eat meat at least once every few days or else we constantly feel weak and tired. Not to mention my hereditary tendency towards vitamin B deficiency which gives everyone in my family violent mood swings unless we either regularly take B-12 supplements or just eat a high-meat diet.
Bravo
Hi Badmouse, I wrote my dissertation on Britain's enforcement of abolition and I thought I'd offer some points.
Your analysis of abolition seems to come directly from Eric Williams - who, in neo-Marxian analysis entitled 'Capitalism and Slavery' (the title of your video), offered an explanatory model which attacked the motives of the abolitionists and argued that slavery was a phase of commercial capitalism which aroused opposition only when it had ceased to perform its economic function. Whilst this was influential, it was written in 1944 and is somewhat outdated in a historiographical sense.
I'd recommend picking up Seymour Drescher's 'Econocide: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition'. Drescher proves that Britain's imperial economy took a significant hit as a result of abolition, and the work of Chaim Kaufmann and Robert Pape has found that, in relative terms, abolition and its enforcement (during which over 150'000 Africans were freed from transportation across the Atlantic) was the costliest moral action in modern history by a state.
Ultimately there were genuine humanitarian intentions at all levels of British society, and it would be wrong to dismiss the whole thing simply as a result of economic requirement.
Interesting stuff
I feel its wrong to dismiss it as one or the other the fact that slavery was becoming less profitable contributed to it being abolished along with a backlash from the public and slaves this is similar to smoking being limited to public spaces as its profit for the government was reducing but it was also a backlash from the public
Doctors, lawyers are not mid class
How did you keep the camera focused and still while walking?
Was it an iPhone and selfie stick? Lol. Good video btw!
Was part of this filmed by the Redgrave Theatre? I vaguely recognise it.
Disclaimer: this is not a "pat ourselves on the back" comment. For anyone interested, the case of Somerset v Stewart is a famous and fascinating one in English legal history in which the invocation of habeus corpus on behalf of a slave (James Somerset) imprisoned on a ship led to the legal recognition [in England] of slaves as people, not property.
Indeed, I believe that this judgement was made in around 1772? The legality use of African slaves in the British Isles (as opposed to the wider Empire) had been inconclusive in the 1600s and 1700s, with different Judges making different judgements based on their interpretation of the law. I believe that there were between 5000 and 10,000 African slaves in the British Isles by 1772 (and an additional 5000 free Africans), the vast majority of them being employed as domestic servants, some of whom had been successfully freed by individual judgements before 1772.
From working so hard my soul was defiled. I am now tormented day and night. It is not fair that you be exempt.
I would watch a BadMouseProductions vlog.
BadMouse, will you please debate Destiny? I like a lot of the ideas surrounding AnCom, but have a lot of pragmatic reservations about it's implementation in the United States (or other capitalist societies). I think that you make a lot of good points, but would like to see some of these incompatibilities fleshed out.
Thanks my dude, keep up the good work.
Was the Gladstone family you mention the same family as William Gladstone?
Yo that ending had me dying LMAO! NO NOT CHE!!!
“Don’t go out and egg them”
Soooo egg them and don’t mention your name? Got it
im reading "The Great Dissent" by Thomas Healy i wonder if he's related to that slave owner
This was really insightful. Great vid. Show how the money in out pockets could be used to better the human race if only it wasn't always burning a hole in my pocket.
Now instead of having to work or not be given food by our owners, we have to work or not be given currency with which to purchase food by our owners.
Progress is fun.
So its slavery with extra steps.
They literally enslaved the proletariat in some regions, saying the parents sold their babies to the coal mine or bourgeoisie owner: "Scottish miners had been bonded to their "maisters" by a 1606 Act "Anent Coalyers and Salters". A Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775, recognised this to be "a state of slavery and bondage" and formally abolished it; this was made effective by a further law in 1799.[21][22]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining
Haitian revolution was the only revolution that made a society of free and equal men
BRILLIANT
Fight and stop the right wing. Become a socialist.
Berruti centrist?
I like Che for his military tactics and such
Yeah, what the hell is that at the very end?
Why is the capitalist view of property illegitimate? I'm confused
Hey man, love your channel! A question I have (and you might have already answered it) is whether or not you think the Soviet Union was better than cold war America? If you can answer, great! If not, oh well.
That billboard/sign-like thing at the end fucking disgusts me. What an insult to the legacy of Che.
Hey im from Bristol, Badmouse lets start the Bristol Commune
FYI: The baronet Gladstone is still very much existant and thriving on the legacy of more than 250 years of exploitation and cruelty.
You should make a video about how the state in western capitalist countries can take your property (right now) through "Civil asset forfeiture" and "Eminent Domian".
Looks like a nice city
That rich Gladstone family wouldn't happen to have any relation to the former PM Gladstone would they
Also why business don't want to pay more 5o workers is because they have to pay the people who invest the company (stocks) first
That billboard...jesus
How many slaves existed in Brittany at that time?
And how many is that percentage by comparison to the society at that time.
There are a lot of good rappers and musicians in Brizzo too
notification squaaaaad!
Hey (this isn't about of the video but still) so I'm new here and all this interests me but a lot of it is going over my head, can someone point me in the direction of socialism 101? Or where I can start to learn more about the stuff talked about on this channel?
Currently I vote NDP in Canada but lean further left than them, however I also don't agree with everything on this channel probably because I don't know about what BadMouse is talking about. Anything would be helpful, thanks in advance :)
i learnt what i know from xexizy, he does alot of videos on the basics, and recommends other ways to learn
The is a cite literally called socialism101 it's a decent introduction to the whole idea but doesn't go in depth.
There are some of Badmouse's videos that are pretty socialism 101-ish. Look at his videos explaining class, private property, capitalisms death toll, and "the divided Island", and the ones about collectivism and cooperatives. There are probably more videos, but I can't remember. The videos should be easy to find, I don't have time to link them, sorry. They're really good for understanding basic socialism/anarchism. Good luck, comrade!
Start with Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and it will teach you all you need to know.
Conquest of bread my dude
Bristol: Welcome to Slavery Town . We've got Slave-mad ice cream and guess what? More Slaves! No refunds.
Ayyyyy what the fuck I live in bridgwater? Also great video man
where in bristol are you?
✅
So Britain had its own version of antebellum but slight dumbed down? Wow.
They should've just started a business.
What have they done to Che
Better than Tom Scott tbh ngl.
BadMouseProductions Great, but disturbing video. I'm a Brit too.
Question: Is it me, or does Paul Joseph Watson look like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
Jeane Duane Kirkpatrick (née Jordan; November 19, 1926 - December 7, 2006) was an American diplomat and political scientist. An ardent anticommunist, she was a longtime Democrat who became a Republican in 1985. After serving as Ronald Reagan's foreign policy adviser in his 1980 campaign, she became the first woman to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations.
She was known for the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine", which advocated supporting authoritarian regimes around the world if they went along with Washington's aims. She believed that they could be led into democracy by example. She wrote, "Traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick
How big a gap is their between the end of slavery in the UK and the use of Indians as de facto slaves?
WAW!!BRISTOL THE SLAVE OWNERS HOME !!
Next video do roman slavery owners who lived on England 👌🏽
Employees are like slaves. Except they're rented instead of being bought and sold.
That's the worst analogy i've ever heard. When slaves were bought, the buyer paid the owner, not the slave. When you get an employee as an employer, you pay the person who is asking for work...
Employees can quit and most want to work...... slave were rented out and they still could not quit
+Cú_ Mara People only sign such 'contracts' because they have to, because the capitalists' hoarding of essential resources leaves them with little option. That's not really 'willing' as far as I'm concerned.
You are kind of right. It is more like rent-a-serf or something like that than straight slavery. Long before this, people did work to survive (hunt, farm, fish, forage, etc) but they were not working for someone else to make out better than themselves nor did much of the resources (land, materials, tools, etc) "belong" to a relative few. Now, it resembles a "nicer" feudal system where one is born into the world but the resources/means are controlled by other individuals, sort of lesser "nobles" for their own gain. It has been rendered more difficult if not impossible to do anything, especially life necessities, without having some master determining whether or not you can get them. Land/means is owned by others, so no legal hunting/gardening/foraging/fishing/residing/etc for you. Most of us are born in a kind of serfdom, it seems.
+Cobi Lancaster 'When you get an employee as an employer, you pay the person who is asking for work'
... and who is only put in a position of having to ask you for work because you (along with everyone else who owns the means of production, collectively) hoard essential resources and are backed up by the violence of the state in so doing.
Did some slaveowners live away from their plantations because they operated them as investments?
Yup.
All of the people I showed were that.
I'm watching this while supervising wage slave labourors build things :(
Atkinson? 😉