@nuclearshill's comment on 'TIL that in 1833 Britain used 40% of its national budget to free all slaves in the Empire : todayilearned'

https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1e4bgp2/til_that_in_1833_britain_used_40_of_its_national/

!britbongs look at the utter ingratitude of these colonials

Paying slave-owners to give up their "property" is clearly worse than saying they get nothing and doing all the rest.

You are right they should have instead continued slavery for a further 60 years, allowed slaves to be continued to be exported from Africa then had a massive civil war over it getting about 700,000 people killed.

Well it would have been more dramatic that way, yes.

How about they try to end the Israel vs. Palestine conflict they caused.

Fun fact: Israel has no right to exist because it should still be the British Mandate of Palestine.

Crazy how many of the "oppressed" countries continue with slavery even without the option to sell to the Brits

You use oppressed in quotation marks and in the same sentence confirm slavery is ongoing in these countries. We still have to call people stupid here.

POC enslaving each other is wypipo's fault :dasrite:

not baller. imperialism is never baller no matter how you try to disguise its intentions. remember, the British always have some other kind of angle — empires never do anything out of kindness.

This is one of the few examples of an empire doing something out of pure altruism. Britain felt like it was their duty to abolish slavery even though that didn't benefit them and cost them and unimaginable some of money. This is a unicorn in terms of imperial actions, there was no gain and a lot of loss and they did it anyway.

:marseyangel:

Instead of buying their freedom you could've just...ya know...freed them.

Edit: You people down voting do realize that you're advocating for compensating slave owners with British tax dollars.

:brainletchest: British tax dollars

Angry Sexy Indian dudes

The British had slaves in Indian until the beginning of the 20th century though.

They like to use the words like "indentured servitude", but it's the same kind of shit

Its very much different. Indentured servant is voluntary. It is essentially a contract to work for a set amount of time (5 years) in exchange for something.

Yet kept indians enslaved until 1947

There is a reason ghandi always spoke highly of British rule in general, his problem was less with the rule and more with the fact indians were not the ones doing it, fair enough obviously, his objection was imperialism rather than the system.

You talk to people as if they must be unaware, i know you are referring to the fixed labour contracts unique to the indians, which is essentially akin to indentured servitude but pretending the numbers of people involved in that which is not really slavery (you can pretend this is universally agreed by historian's if you really want) is the same as it continuing slavery is disingenuous and also pretending this was remotely relevant in 1947 is also disingenuous.

!bharatiya penny for your thoughts?