The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – “…The Ball that Shot Nelson” (2)

Jeff Cumberbatch – Chairman of the FTC and Deputy Dean, Law Faculty, UWI, Cave Hill

Last week, the first part of this column treated the submission by Sir Hilary Beckles, Vice Chancellor of the University of the West Indies, that the statue of Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson had outlived its incongruous presence in Heroes Square and that its continued presence there makes Barbados a deviant and a pariah in the community of progressive nations that oppose publicly revering persons (such as Nelson) known to have committed “crimes against humanity”.

In that first part, I also bemoaned the absence of a popular discourse on the Vice Chancellor’s proposal, an absence that I found mystifying. In the past week, however, there has been some public reaction to the proposal, most of it predictably defensive of preservation of the status quo rather than of its alteration by one jot or tittle.

For example, in last Friday’s edition of the Barbados Advocate, a correspondent, Mr Michael Rudder, chose to pray in aid the undeniable reality of the criminally forcible mix of the races present in most if not all slave societies and to wonder “if any of my African ancestors were responsible for selling any of their “brothers” to those who carried on the slave trade” while he admits knowledge that the family of one Caucasian ancestor did have slaves.

He then proceeds to make the amazing rhetorical point that since we are all mixed, “what does it matter that some ancestor was a so-called white supremacist? And he continues still rhetorically, “Did your ancestor see him/herself as such? Do we see ourselves as black supremacists?

Essentially, he makes the point that we should acknowledge our history and move on and not “keep holding up the rear mirror of our past”.

It is tempting to read this opinion in a sense clearly not intended by the author and to treat it as an agreement with Sir Hilary’s thesis that officially to maintain the statue of Lord Nelson in its current location is to hold up the rear view mirror of 1813 Barbados when Nelson was a hero to the existing societal structure, the identical structure that was to be the target of a slave rebellion a mere three years later, officially recognized by the elevation of one of its reputed leaders to the highest national status. Indeed, there is a bit of a paradox in having both of these men elevated to this lofty status, even if that status of one of them is now merely situational.

It is a conundrum that seems to pervade Barbadian society, where the general attitude appears to be “I do not really care what they do about Lord Nelson, but he is part of our history” OR the more extreme and silly, “if we move Nelson then we should remove all traces of English influence, including place names, titles and perhaps surnames…”

Veteran columnist Patrick Hoyos in his column last Sunday required “some sort of consistent rationale if Nelson should be moved” although he did not spell out what would constitute such consistency or who would be the ultimate arbiter of it.

Mr Hoyos also appears to have interpreted Sir Hilary’s letter in a way different to me. He construes the following passages from the Beckles letter as indicating that Sir Hilary would not have minded Nelson remaining standing so long as he was overlooking Carlisle Bay contemplating his exploits beyond the horizon…”

“ The Democratic Labour Party turned it around and deepened its roots when it had the opportunity to move it to a marine park on the pier.

• The Barbados Labour Party did not wish the Right Excellent Errol Barrow at the centre of Parliament Square and placed him out of sight of the Assembly in what was a public car park. Nelson remained in the more prominent place”.

Perhaps owing to my professional training, I prefer to base the gist of an opinion on the interpretation that what is stated later should generally overrule an earlier statute or decision that is inconsistent with it through the doctrine of implied repeal. I prefer to ascertain Sir Hilary’s sentiments from his final paragraphs-

“The assumption is growing, I have been informed, that the Government might rather citizens, in an act of moral civil disobedience, to take matters in their own hands, and remove the offending obstacle to democracy. This has been the case in the United States and South Africa.

Quietly, state officials could slip away and say that the people have spoken. Such alliances of active citizens and passive state have moved many societies. Barbados must move on.”

This most assuredly does not read as a paean to a mere relocation of the statue to me.

O Dominica!

I should wish to express my sincere best wishes for the full renaissance and recovery of the island of Dominica after its devastation by Hurricane Maria during last week. Owing to my occupation, I have come into contact with many of the people of that island whether as teachers, classmates, or most latterly students, and they have been without exception, some of the most gracious and warmest people you will ever encounter. Dominica was also the first country that I slept in outside of Barbados when as a member of the Animation Choir under the leadership of Mr Harold Rock, I sailed there by the Federal Palm, I believe, in 1968. I do not remember much of it now; except partaking of the sweet lime fruit and hazarding a taste of stewed mountain chicken.

My more recent visits unfortunately have been severely limited in duration and in free time, but I have seem the photographs of the recent destruction wrought and I weep for the country I remember.

O Dominica, the land of beauty

The land of verdant and glorious sunshine…

499 comments

  • peterlawrencethompson

    Really John??? An MA thesis? Not peer reviewed and not by a qualified scholar and researcher. Are you serious? Will you be citing high school term papers next?

    You are aware, I presume, that the fragment of MA thesis that you quoted could have been pulled directly from Dr. Eric Williams now discredited Marxist thesis that the reason the British abandoned slavery had nothing to do with humanitarian arguments from the Quakers, but was solely that sugar had become unprofitable. I had no idea you were a closet Marxist… 😂

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Vincent,
    Of course sugar was subsidized in the 20th century. We were proving that it was profitable in the 200 years before emancipation.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Vincent,
    If you read the research that I pointed you towards you would have learned that “the benefits over tobacco and cotton” were that in the early years of the sugar industry it was extremely profitable, earning rates of return on investment of 40% to 50%.

    Like

  • John September 28, 2017 at 1:30 PM “You are confusing crime and sin. You can’t accept the concept of sin because you are an atheist and to do so would be accept God. So you invent “crime against humanity” when all you need to call it was sin. Because God deals with that.”

    Slavery was both a sin and a crime against humanity. And this is how God instructs us to deal with sin “if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. ” Matther:5:24

    Your “God deals with sin” is wrong. God instructs us to deal with sin BEFORE we bring gifts to him.

    Like

  • @John
    I am spiritual, not religious, though I respect the right of others to worship whomever they desire. Hence
    “God honoured Quakers with business success because they honoured Him.
    He made it so they only had business on which to depend.”

    loses me. It is a premise, I can neither prove, nor disprove.

    “What is our wealth today? I say, our history!!”

    ipso facto….reparations will provide an ongoing revenue stream? The continuing subsidy.

    Like

  • Simple Simon

    Hmmm…..some very interesting biblical quotes above…..how are you applying them to present day slavery besides praying……how are you helping your enslaved brothers and sisters in Mauretania as shown above.

    You have never met far less spoken to a slave,why not take a trip so you can understand their experiences first hand as opposed to believing every tom,dick&harry rubbish that can never be proven or disproved……..talk is cheap on BU.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Vincent Haynes September 28, 2017 at 6:13 PM # asked
    “how are you helping your enslaved brothers and sisters”

    I donate money and other resources to HERA UK a charity that helps trafficked (enslaved) women, mostly from the Balkans or eastern Europe, to escape their captors and build new lives through entrepreneurship (my ex-wife’s sister is the founder).

    How are YOU helping your enslaved brothers and sisters Vincent??

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    Actually folks, you can do a world of good by donating to HERA UK yourselves:
    https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/entrepreneurs-against-trafficking/

    Like

  • Chuckle…..always the easy way out……money solves everything…….. A true albino centric mindset……no leading a delegation to discuss with the perpetrators……no forming a band of brothers to fight for your brothers and sister……..just money…….hahaha.

    Like

  • Chuckle……a true albino centric….eh Bushie…..helping European tribes to besides……nothing for his African siblings and yours.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @vincent haynesw September 28, 2017 at 6:34 PM #
    I said “I donate money and other resources.” My professional expertise is in entrepreneurship and fundraising so I will leave you to connect the dots.

    It’s easy to be dismissive of my efforts when you yourself do nothing.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @vincent haynesw September 28, 2017 at 6:38 PM #
    You are embarrassing yourself now Vincent. I already confessed to being a Black man who is of 25% European ancestry. I help human beings of any colour or ethnicity Most of the women HERA helps are from Europe but some have been from Somalia and some from Chad. I do not know if we’ve helped any Mauritanians.

    How are YOU helping your enslaved brothers and sisters Vincent??

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    Vincent just keeps his begging bowl handy to rob bajans…waiting for subsidies…read, free taxpayer’s money from descendants of slaves.

    Like

  • For those who arrived late to this show I self identify as a Pelau whose siblings are his fellow Caribbean Pelau their progeny and its Diaspora. African and European tribes are part of my DNA and that is the alpha and omega of their involvement with me. Those who wish to claim either need to discover their tribe and carry on smartly.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @vincent haynesw September 28, 2017 at 7:06 PM #
    My tribe is human beings.
    How are YOU helping the brothers and sisters of your tribe Vincent??

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    Exactly…I am from the human tribe, the human race, every other description is manmade…lol

    Like

  • John

    I asked for a download on Nichols paper but not received as yet….do you have another source for it?…..I wonder if he is related?

    Like

  • In John’s opinion Slavery was legal because it was codified by the laws of the day, apologists for the National Party of South Africa could make the same claim for Apartheid, they could even state that it was sanctioned by the Dutch Reform Church.

    Like

  • I was exposed to it since my arrival in 1964 which is why I would like to know definitively when it was profitable.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    After the slaves in Haiti destroyed the economy in 1791 until Beet Sugar in Europe became available as a replacement for Caribbean sugar and began to compete pricewise.

    There will have been fluctuations in that period.

    The Parish Churches were rebuilt after the 1831 hurricane with sugar money.

    Schools were built.

    If you look at Plantation houses you will find only two substantial ones dating back to the 1650’s, perhaps before, Drax Hall and Nicholas Abbey.

    Jacobean Architecture or so I am made to understand.

    There are others from that era but not built on the same scale and not Jacobean and if you look closer at some of these you will find extremely modest base structures.

    Brighton is 1666 vintage I believe, no way extravagant.

    You will not find conspicuous extravagance associated with enormous profits.

    The substantial plantation houses we see today date from after the 1790’s. Please check that and confirm or show me wrong.

    They are mostly Georgian Archtecture if I understand the term, and the Georgian period was from 1714 and 1830.

    The plantation houses in the Scotland District …… well, none could be said to have been the result of huge profits.

    The money was ploughed into the land and sugar works.

    That’s why I feel the Cumberbatch story and Cleland was concocted.

    There are other periods when the price of Sugar rose that would have been profitable, particularly but not always during wars.

    People always knew there would be a slump after a boom and operated to suit.

    Erroll Barrow in 1975 saw the world sugar price rise and chose to sell our sugar on the world market and not meet the commitments to Britain and its subsidized prices.

    The fireside chat … GOB imposed a tax on the windfall and gave the BWU some for the Labour College at Mangrove … finance corruption!!!!!

    Barrow’s bag man had an option to buy Mangrove which the BWU had to pay off before it got possession!!

    In 1976 Brazil had planted to take advantage … there was a glut …. and prices went through the floor.

    … EWB got kicked out of power … Duffus Commission.

    In 1976, Britain merely said, sorry old chaps, your quota is reduced, we found another way to make up your shortfall last year which is more dependable!!

    That’s a year after I got a scholarship!!!

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 28, 2017 at 8:40 PM # wrote
    “If you look at Plantation houses you will find only two substantial ones dating back to the 1650’s, perhaps before, Drax Hall and Nicholas Abbey.”

    You do realize of course that If you search for Jacobean Mansions in the Americas three examples pop up, Drax Hall Great House and St. Nicholas Abbey, both located in Barbados, and Bacon’s Castle in Surry County, Virginia. Bacon’s Castle is nowhere near as impressive as either Drax Hall or St. Nicholas Abbey. Imagine that: little tiny Barbados with more and bigger Jacobean Mansions that the whole of British North America.

    So what does this tell us? It shows that Barbados in that era was by far the richest and most prosperous British colony in the Americas. Since this is before the British colonized India, John has proven that Barbados was the richest colony in the entire British empire at that time.

    It is so amusing when John provides the examples that prove his argument to be completely false.

    But it gets even better… he points out that looking at most plantation houses “none could be said to have been the result of huge profits;” the profits mostly got repatriated to Britain (absentee landlords and paying moneylenders) so the lion’s share of the profits from Barbados plantations didn’t even stay on Barbados plantations.

    Thanks John, for exposing your own lies once again.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Vincent asked
    ” I would like to know definitively when it [sugar] was profitable.”
    John answered “After the slaves in Haiti destroyed the economy in 1791 until Beet Sugar in Europe became available as a replacement for Caribbean sugar and began to compete pricewise.”

    It will be clear to you by now Vincent, that John’s answer is a transparent lie.

    Sugar was profitable in Barbados throughout the era of slavery until, as John points out, when Beet sugar could out compete it in the mid 20th century.

    It is pathetic that John feels he has to falsify history to prop up his racist notions of slavery, but it is even more disturbing that you seem to swallow his lies.

    Like

  • absentee landlords !!!!

    Might be in Jamaica, not here!!

    Read your history!!

    Family might be in Britain but most “plantations” in Barbados were small, some tiny!!

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 28, 2017 at 9:52 PM #
    “absentee landlords !!!!”

    You are right that this was more common in Jamaica, but look at your own example of Codrington plantation; owned by absentee landlords after Christopher Codrington himself died in 1710.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Vincent & John,
    In case you have any interest in the actual history of slavery in Barbados rather than apologist lies, you will find the Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slave-ownership at University College London to be a useful tool.
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

    Like

  • It shows that Barbados in that era was by far the richest and most prosperous British colony in the Americas. Since this is before the British colonized India, John has proven that Barbados was the richest colony in the entire British empire at that time.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Of what era are you speaking?

    Has it ever dawned on you that they brought their riches to Barbados when they left England?

    After New England was settled in 1620, Puritans left England in droves taking their riches, and wealth!!

    The Puritans needed Barbados/St. Kitts because of their location in the Atlantic currents.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan_migration_to_New_England_(1620%E2%80%9340)

    “The Puritan migration to New England was marked in its effects in the two decades from 1620 to 1640, after which it declined sharply for a time. The term Great Migration usually refers to the migration in this period of English Puritans to Massachusetts and the West Indies, especially Barbados. They came in family groups rather than as isolated individuals and were motivated chiefly by a quest for freedom to practice their Puritan religion”

    The English Government took to turning back ships in the Thames because when the Puritans left they took what ever they could carry … and their skills.

    It was making England poorer!!

    Most of the people leaving were literate, and economically contributing members of society

    http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/the-great-migration-of-picky-puritans-1620-40/

    Even Cromwell ….. little did the King know!!

    “It would appear that in 1634 Cromwell attempted to emigrate to Connecticut in America, but was prevented by the government from leaving.”

    When the Quakers appeared in 1648, New England was not open to them as a refuge as it had been to the Puritans.

    So they came to Barbados, St. Kitts and New Amsterdam/New York where they were welcomed by the Dutch.

    Captain James Drax was a member of the 1639 Assembly, certainly a Puritan … and a rich one!!!

    No sugar supposedly then!!

    No Quakers either!!

    …. and probably few if any slaves.

    In fact, George Fox would have been 15 years old!!

    In the same Assembly was … you guessed it …. Captain Benjamin Berringer!!

    So, both families were originally Puritan, rich in all probability, who may very well have built their houses before sugar, and before Quakers arrived on the scene!!!!

    About Drax Hall the web says “No one knows for sure, but it is generally believed that Drax Hall was built by the brothers William and James Drax in the 1650’s”

    So where did James and William hang their hats from before 1639 to the 1650’s?

    About Nicholas Abbey the web is more definite: “St.Nicholas Abbey, located in the parish of St.Peter, was built in 1658 and is one of only three genuine Jacobean mansions in the Western Hemisphere.”

    Same question applies to Benjamin Berringer. “Where did he call home from before 1639 and 1658?”

    … and it looks like the Benjamin Berringer in the 1639 Assembly could be the father of Benjamin Berringer who arrived in Barbados in 1656 who was supposed to have been killed in a duel!!!

    Assuming they were both rich they built their houses when they were young, they did not hang about … so my inclination is towards the early 1640’s, maybe before sugar.

    You see the problem with our historians, they never had access to the Internet or other databases designed for easy searches.

    I reckon in the next ten years our history will have been rewritten, if not sooner.

    No shame on them, its just that more information is available now, and easier.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    John September 28, 2017 at 10:50 PM #

    Drax Hall Estate was where the first sugar cane was cultivated in 1642. The Jacobean Mansion was built with sugar money in the 1650s, perhaps a few years before St. Nicholas Abbey. “Captain James Drax was a member of the 1639 Assembly,” but it is only with sugar that the scale of the family fortune grew to afford the ostentatious mansion.

    Col. Benjamin Berringer built St. Nicholas Abbey in 1658 after he had lived in Barbados for 24 years and was married with three kids. There is not the slightest doubt that if he could have afforded to build before that he would have… but he could not afford it until sugar had made him rich.

    So you are dead wrong again… neither mansion was built before sugar, they were both built with sugar money.

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    Those broke ass enslavers left UK looking to get rich by any means…what brought what riches what…..most of them washed ashore half dead and disease ridden, some wrote journals and the horrors were animalistic in nature…in the US they ate each other to survive…in some instances.

    Trying to paint some picture of wealth before the slave trade is deceitful, if they were so wealthy and comfortable, they would never leave UK.

    ….they had nothing and left UK traveling around the world to see what they could thief.

    Like

  • @peterlawrencethompson September 28, 2017 at 11:15 PM “So you are dead wrong again… neither mansion was built before sugar, they were both built with sugar money.”

    CORRECTION: Berringer and Drax became rich through slavery. Neither mansion was built before sugar, they were both built with the labour of enslaved people.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Simple Simon September 29, 2017 at 12:28 AM #
    Of course you are correct that the basis of these fortunes was the labour stolen from enslaved people, but neither Berringer or the Drax brothers were ever in the business of selling enslaved people insofar as I am aware. They made their money buying enslaved people and stealing their labour to grow sugar.

    Like

  • Byer, seller of people. Same thing as far as I am concerned. All participants in evil.

    And very likely the hands of enslaved people also built the mansions.

    Like

  • Drax Hall Estate was where the first sugar cane was cultivated in 1642. The Jacobean Mansion was built with sugar money in the 1650s, perhaps a few years before St. Nicholas Abbey.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Like I said, nobody knows!!

    Like

  • So it looks like we have established that Benjamin Berrenger and James Drax could not possibly have been Quakers when sugar took off because Quakers came on the scene in 1648.

    We agree this fact … right????

    Like

  • James Drax’s son, Henry, however was.

    Will RB6/12/358

    Friends Christopher Codrington, John Codrington, Richard Guy, Samuel Newton and John Hothersall

    Like

  • Henry left no issue.

    …. but he left his land to ALL of his nephews provided they changed their surname to Drax,

    Like

  • SS

    CORRECTION: Berringer and Drax became rich through slavery. Neither mansion was built before sugar, they were both built with the labour of enslaved people.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Seems to be factually incorrect!!

    “In the early phase of sugar production, planters claimed that these qualities were rare in most Africans, and when they were present, thought it politically necessary to suppress or eradicate them. As a result, they became heavily dependent on the labour force of white indentured servants to make the critical transition to sugar production. ”

    In this period, servants brought skills to the colony which were adapted to meet the planter’s demands. Their emergence from a rapidly developing technological tradition made them suitable: The planters’ importation of servants was conceived of not only in terms of labour inputs, but also as an injection of technology.

    The majority of planters found indentured servants adequate for sugar production. The result was a very large increase in the demand. for servants during the sugar boom of the late 1640s and early, 1650s., The Civil War in England was critical in releasing large numbers of labourers, and between 1645 and 1650 at least 8,000 men joined the labour-force of Barbados. By 1652, some 13,000 servants were employed in sugar product1ön: “

    Like

  • Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Hull
    by
    Hilary MacDonald Beckles, B. A.

    Like

  • “The early profitability of sugar was itself the factor that encouraged the lopsidedness of the Barbadian economy.

    …. James Drax, Benjamin Berringer ….. up to 1660’s, 1670’s

    When the sugar industry ceased to be profitable on a long term basis, the planters were in no position to retrench and diversity.

    ….. 1680’s “Groans of the Plantations” … Quakers in control

    Their resources were geared to the production of the export crop, and the debt which they had by then accumulated forced them to go on concentrating on the production of the export staple as the only means of earning the foreign exchange necessary for meeting debt payrnents to the metropolitan merchants. Protection in the metropolitan market helped the planters to maintain the plantations intact during the Eighteenth Century.”

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    “Byer, seller of people. Same thing as far as I am concerned. All participants in evil.

    And very likely the hands of enslaved people also built the mansions.”

    Slavemasters and their families were so greedy and lazy, you can guarantee that slaves built Barbados and the whole Caribbean….UK and Europe, US and Canada, slaves built every brick and building and roof, every road. Slaves built the WH.

    To this day, these crooks believe that stealing labor from people is ok.

    Like

  • LOL
    John is so possessed by this legacy of evil, that he is unable to sleep …and despite being made to look the fool over and over and over again by PLT, he is constrained to keep getting up off the mat and presenting his chin for yet another upper cut…..
    What a punishment…
    What a price to pay…

    Reminiscent of the legendary Pharaoh of Egypt when Moses kept on hitting him with the plagues… and he kept coming back for more…
    …this is worse than the death that came to niggers from the lynchings or worse…

    @ Vincent
    Do you understand the concept of cockroach avoiding fowl cock party….?!!?

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    John on September 29, 2017 at 2:23 AM
    “Like I said, nobody knows!!”

    You’re lying again John. We have definitely proven that Drax Hall was built in the 1650s with money from the nascent sugar industry which was so profitable that it made Barbados the wealthiest colony in the entire British empire at that time.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 28, 2017 at 10:50 PM #
    “Has it ever dawned on you that they brought their riches to Barbados when they left England?”

    Honestly John, your argumets are so pathetically weak that they are totally boring in addition to being evil and racist.

    From Wikipedia “James Drax became one of the earliest English migrants to the island of Barbados: he and his companions arrived and lived for a time in a cave, hunting for provisions…”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Drax

    Living in a cave and being a hunter gatherer… sounds like he really brought his riches to Barbados.

    Like

  • The profitability in the early days of sugar, the 1640’s and 1650’s came at a time when free labour from England was available .. Civil War, 1642-1651.

    Drax and Berrenger built large houses out of the profits of Sugar and their labour.

    They may or may not have had riches before coming to Barbados.

    The investment in buying the cane plants and the means to grind the cane took riches.

    So they must have had riches before they got into sugar or have been able to convince someone to lend them those riches.

    They had an idea which someone with money believed in.

    Cromwell invaded Ireland in 1649-1653 continuing to make prisoners of war available for shipment to Barbados.

    wiki -“The Navigation Acts were a series of Acts passed in the English Parliament in 1651,1660 & 1663. The colonies represented a lucrative source of wealth and trade. The Navigation Acts were designed to regulate colonial trade and enabled England to collect duties (taxes) in the Colonies.”

    Once the profitability of sugar was established, and with the cessation of the flow of servants from England, large scale importation of slaves from Africa begun.

    We know African slaves were already in Barbados in the period 1647-1649 from Ligon

    We know the Quakers arrived on the scene in England and Ireland in 1648.

    The earliest will I have found of what appears to be a Quaker is from 1649, a Goddard.

    We also know that in 1655 Mary Fisher and Ann Austin were the first Quaker itinerants to visit Barbados.

    … and we also know that at least up until 1676, Quakers in Barbados were routinely persecuted for their beliefs.

    We also know that their population was growing as their message gained favour.

    Henry Drax and Christopher Codrington, either II or II became convinced Quakers prior to 1682, the date of Henry Drax’s will.

    And we also know from the treatise written by Lillington in the 1680’s that Sugar was unprofitable.

    So we can say that up to the 1680’s, sugar was profitable.

    Thereafter, when the French colonies and Brazil came on the market, the price of sugar fell.

    It doesn’t take much of a leap of faith to get to the realization that Barbados is a pinprick compared to Brazil, Haiti, even Martinique and Guadeloupe.

    Thereafter, periods of boom and bust followed, to the current day.

    Sugar provided the means to clothe, feed, house the population and eventually, sugar made us all free.

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    They made money from trading slaves on and off island and then from sugar, after they were able to accumulate their ill gotten gains and diversify, selling slaves came first.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 11:16 AM #

    Didn’t you even READ the basic research I linked you to??

    Drax “arrived with a stock of no more than £300.”

    “Concurrent with the rise of sugar came large-scale and intensive exploitation of slave labor, and here too Drax was a notorious pioneer. Prior to 1640, the primary source of labor in Barbados had been European indentured servants. Although there were African slaves in Barbados before this point, it was only after 1640, and frequently in tandem with the cultivation of sugar, that slave labor began to supplant indentured servitude as the chief mode of production. Drax was deeply involved in this transition, acquiring 22 slaves in early 1642, just as he was getting involved in sugar. In 1644, he purchased another 34 slaves. By the early 1650s, his huge estate was manned by some 200 slaves of African descent.”

    So by the time Drax had enough money to build Drax Hall, he had already bought 200 enslaved people.

    Why do you persist in lying about this John, when the truth is so easy to find?

    Everything that you have said about sugar profitability in the period of slavery in Barbados I have proved to be absolutely wrong by quoting easily accessed and reputable research and historical records. Why are you so dedicated to White supremacist ideology??

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    John September 29, 2017 at 11:16 AM #
    “So we can say that up to the 1680’s, sugar was profitable.”

    The data that YOU posted above about the Codrington Plantation proves that you are lying again here John by trying to imply that sugar was not profitable throughout the period of slavery in Barbados. Why put up this hopeless denial of the plain obvious facts?

    Like

  • Bushie

    Chuckle…likkle bwoi…..hush do….

    I have a lot of time for John’s research of historical FACTs every time a point is disputed he returns to it in a dispassionate manner with more evidence to back it up or acknowledging as all intelligent people are aware that none of this historical debate can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    On the other hand I have little time for PLTs histrionics which are based on his 5 decades old beef with John over the fact that he is more learned than he is,so instead of having a mature conversation on issues his mind is closed and his only intent is to disprove John by whatever means.

    I am intrigued by the fake news of Drax living in a cave…..was it sheltering after a storm at Ellesmere…..was he an eccentric with 300 pounds to his name……intriguing indeed.

    If you and the other duffuses on here would take time and study John’s facts and responses ,you would learn a lot as opposed to tossing ad hominems all over the place as well as making false statement against the young chap.

    But as GP has stated before…..thats what the idiots on here enjoy doing.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Vincent Haynes September 29, 2017 at 1:38 PM #
    “I am intrigued by the fake news of Drax living in a cave”

    If it’s fake Vincent you can argue the point with Jerome S. Handler, “Father Antoine Biet’s Visit to Barbados in 1654,” Journal of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society, 32 (1967), 69

    I am amused by those who cannot prove a single one of their assertions so they fall back on the popular Trumpian tactic of declaring it “fake news” because it proves them wrong.

    “was he an eccentric with 300 pounds to his name…” If you had taken the time to read the simple resources that I linked you to you would have discovered that that nugget comes from one of John’s favorite resources Richard Ligon, A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados (1657), 96.

    You “have little time for PLTs histrionics” because you have little time for learning, only for defending your prejudices.

    I do “take time and study John’s facts and responses” meticulously because I am hoping to learn things that I did not know before. I have actually learned a lot from the historical material that John has cited… it just so happens that all that historical material that John himself has led me to disproves all of John’s major assertions about colonial Barbados. The historical material that John has cited has proven John wrong about:
    1. the profitability of sugar plantations in Barbados under slavery
    2. the wealth generated by the Barbados sugar industry under slavery
    3. the treatment of enslaved people in Barbados
    4. the starvation of Black people in Barbados under slavery and after emancipation
    5. the riches that English immigrants brought with them to Barbados
    6. and on and on…
    I did not prove John wrong on these points… the historical resources cited by John proved John wrong.

    People have asked me why I persist in this fruitless exercise… do I actually expect John to admit any of his errors? Well I’m an optimist, whenever he tells me I have made an error I apologize immediately and go back to double check my sources… I guess I am hoping my example will rub off on him. Actually, I do it because I am learning a lot, not only about the history of Barbados, but more importantly about its present. I am developing a deep understanding of why we have failed to make progress in the 40+ years that I was away from here. This is invaluable to me in my efforts to make a positive difference now that I’m back.

    Like

  • The data that YOU posted above about the Codrington Plantation proves that you are lying again here John by trying to imply that sugar was not profitable throughout the period of slavery in Barbados. Why put up this hopeless denial of the plain obvious facts?
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    It proves that Codrington’s estates were well managed and even so, there were periods of losses!!

    A bug windfall occurred when Codrington’s heirs chose to contest the will

    But like all plantations, subsides were the order of the day

    Like

  • big … not bug … that’s what I appear to be doing to you

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @ John, as you know the only period of Codrington losses was during the American revolution, and that was a four year period of very modest loss in comparison to hundreds of years of substantial profits. You can find data on other estates in the The Profitability of Sugar Planting in the British West Indies, 1650-1834 by J. R. Ward

    His findings for profit rates in Barbados as a percentage of invested capital are as follows:
    1689-1697 War —
    1698-1702 Peace —
    1703-1713 War 6.2%
    1714-1748 —
    1749-1755 Peace 3.4%
    1756-1762 War 11.2%
    1763-1775 Peace 5.6%
    1776-1782 War 2.3%
    1783-1791 Peace 5.3%
    1792-1798 War 6.1%
    1799-1819 War 5.8%
    1820-1834 Peace 7.7%

    This shows that other estates must have been better managed that Codrington because the overall profit during the American revolution remains positive even though Codrington and its losses were a part of the sample for the above table.

    Like

  • Drax “arrived with a stock of no more than £300.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    So where did he get the riches in 1642

    to buy cane plants,
    ship them here,
    clear the land,
    plant the cane,
    clear more land
    replant from the mature cane to increase the acreage,
    fertilize,
    reap,
    buy the stock,
    buy the “ingeniio” to grind the cane,
    buy the boiling equipment
    build buildings to house the equipment

    etc etc etc.

    with no more than 300 GBP’s in 1627

    You can stretch a dollar bill (also a GBP) only so far for 15 years by living in a cave and he could not go to Chefette.

    Aaahhh I know, tell us from Ward, perhaps even Ligon what the investment in a sugar works was in 1642 so we can see how he was able to stretch the less than 300 GBP’s he had in 1627!!

    Clearly, he had access to riches way beyond the less than 300 GBP’s he arrived with, whether his own or through a mortgage.

    But he had wealth, his plan to grow sugar which attracted the riches to make it possible.

    You say you are involved in entrepreneurship … use your own experiences!!!!

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John,
    You have provided no evidence of subsidies during the 1642 – 1838 time period.

    Like

  • 1689-1697 War —
    1698-1702 Peace —
    1714-1748 —

    ???????????????????????

    Like

  • You have provided no evidence of subsidies during the 1642 – 1838 time period.
    ++++++++++++++++

    You have

    The periods of losses

    Who made up the shortfall?

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 3:08 PM #
    “The periods of losses Who made up the shortfall?”

    As in any business it was a combination of retained earnings, which were copious, and moneylenders if the plantation was badly managed.

    Like

  • Well Well @ Consequences Observing Blogger

    ..John is so possessed by this legacy of evil….
    What a punishment…
    What a price to pay…

    that`s the whole crux right there Bushman….clean spirits at all cost resist and never bow to evil doers, absorb or enable those who walk in perpetual darkness…we know much better.

    at downgrade #20, they cant even use begging bowls anymore, there is nothing left to beg descendants of slaves for…this is all they got…reminisce about the evil days of other peoples misery….

    the young ones will have to run go look for real work in the real world….the old ones like these two demons will languish in darkness and despair until family chuck them in a room somewhere in diapers with only their darkness for company….saw one suffer to die some years ago, their end is very long and drawn out..

    i have seen them before…their end is never pretty…and the one thing you never do is show them sympathy or kindness, just be glad that the stains that they are..got removed from the earth…

    Like

  • Hahaha…..on point with bugging…….he is so bitter towards you that he intends to belittle you if he cannot destroy you……fifty years of bile…..sad.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    John September 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM #
    “[Drax] had access to riches way beyond the less than 300 GBP’s he arrived with, whether his own or through a mortgage”

    This is very easy to figure out John.

    £300 in the late 1620s was a decent amount of investment capital (worth about £678,000 in today’s money), undoubtedly a great deal more than most Englishmen arrived in Barbados with. He and William would have invested that mostly in land; he had one of the largest estates and was a prominent planter and parliamentarian long before he experimented with sugar.

    It would have been very easy for him to raise investment capital by mortgaging land in order to finance his sugar experiments in the early 1640s. It would also have given him enough cash to buy enslaved people, 50 by 1644.

    None of this required any kind of sugar subsidy.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @vincent haynesw September 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM #
    “he is so bitter”

    On the contrary Vincent, I lead a charmed life: money in the bank, a beautiful girlfriend, a sea bath any morning I feel like it, two brilliant successful sons, meaningful work helping other people, lots of time to waste on arguments with John… I really don’t know how life could possibly be better.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM #
    1689-1697 War —
    1698-1702 Peace —
    1714-1748 —
    ???????????????????????

    As you are well aware John, there are holes in the historical financial records. There is absolutely no hard evidence, however that the sugar industry was not profitable during these periods.

    Like

  • You clearly haven’t read “The Groans of the Plantations”!!

    Check the date

    Like

  • @ peterlawrencethompson who wrote ” I lead a CHARMED life: MONEY in the bank,

    a BEAUTIFUL girlfriend, two BRILLIANT SUCCESSFUL sons,lots of time to waste .

    I really don’t know how life could possibly be better.”

    Peter you sound like Donald Trump.

    Like

  • As in any business it was a combination of retained earnings, which were copious, and moneylenders if the plantation was badly managed.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So, if plantations held on to their retained earnings which they did to ensure they were in operation in the bad years and could employ, feed, hose clothe etc their slaves it stands to reason that there was no mucho dinero in circulation.

    Which pertained in the period after slavery as well

    Barbados survived on a shoestring … it used to be referred to as thrift.

    Like

  • PLT

    Humility, dear boy, humility.

    Like

  • Chuckle…..I need say nothing more on that issue.

    Like

  • Hey, If you have money in the bank, a beautiful woman successful sons and are helping others, then you have reasons to feel good. Don’t let the aspiring journalist (Ha) and the pelau aspiring to be white (VH) put clouds in your sky.

    Like

  • @ John September 29, 2017 at 4:15 PM
    “So, if plantations held on to their retained earnings which they did to ensure they were in operation in the bad years and could employ, feed, hose clothe etc their slaves it stands to reason that there was no mucho dinero in circulation.”

    What do you mean by “could employ”? Do you mean it as in “give work to (someone) and pay them for it”?

    Or do you mean it as in ‘forced them to labour from Sunup to Sundown, 365 times per year with a period off to celebrate the ‘crop-over’ to sing, dance and make wisecracks to entertain Massa and his family and friends’?

    Stop being a Saul and see the Light of Paul. Stop making excuses for the sins of your ancestors by painting slavery as the best thing to have happened to Africans sold by their own kith and kin.

    John, why don’t you do like your namesake John (Newton) and do an ‘Amazingly’ graceful thing?

    Ask your god for forgiveness on behalf of your ancestors. And then your eyes will be opened to see the Light of Truth that leads to the road of catharsis and reconciliation leading to a brighter future of racial coexistence.

    “Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
    That saved a wretch like me!
    I once was lost, but now am found;
    Was blind, but now I see.

    When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
    Bright shining as the sun,
    We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
    Than when we’d first begun.”

    Liked by 1 person

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 3:48 PM #
    “You clearly haven’t read “The Groans of the Plantations”!!”

    You are right. I have not read it. I was looking, instead, for hard evidence like the plantation records from Codrington that you showed me. I will see if I can find an electronic copy online.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Hal Austin September 29, 2017 at 4:34 PM #
    “Humility, dear boy, humility.”

    I have done nothing to deserve my extraordinary luck, so I am indeed humble. I regret that my passion for the truth mislead Vincent to think me bitter… I will work to figure out ways of expressing my passion without it being intimidating to some people.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @TheGazer September 29, 2017 at 5:55 PM #
    “Don’t let the aspiring journalist (Ha) and the pelau aspiring to be white (VH) put clouds in your sky.”

    Oh they don’t cloud my sky at all… John makes me a bit sad because I’m so aware of the wasted talent, but that is not my cross to bear.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 4:15 PM #
    “… if plantations held on to their retained earnings which they did to ensure they were in operation in the bad years and could employ, feed, hose clothe etc their slaves it stands to reason that there was no mucho dinero in circulation….”

    Are you really this innocent of the ways of business John?? Apple and Google hang on to billions in retained earnings… it does not in any way indicate that there is not “mucho dinero” in circulation. It is simply the way that capitalism works. The sugar plantations, if they were halfway competently administered, had incredible cash flow and copious profits. How could they not when the most important variable cost, the production labour, was stolen?

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Hants September 29, 2017 at 4:15 PM #
    “Peter you sound like Donald Trump.”

    OMG that is truly frightening. Trump is a gaping a**hole of a human being… he thinks that he deserves his riches, but I know that whatever little I have is through good fortune and that it is my duty to share as best I can.

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    “and the pelau aspiring to be white (VH).””

    The way the sentence was trailing off my mind wandered and it looked like Gazer was describing some disease. ….

    …..it took my 5 minutes to stop laughing…lol

    Like

  • 166 square miles Fixed!

    Output of sugar fixed, no new technology like steam till the 1840’s!!

    Only fluctuations in output due to drought, flood, hurricane, disease, management, varieties etc.

    …. and a population which needs to fed, clothed, housed and cared … that doubles.

    My point form the beginning, slavery never made financial sense long term!!

    … but if you like, go look at output figures for sugar in Schomburgk

    The only thing that would change this assertion is if the price of sugar remained high and increased.

    We all know it did not!!

    Ergo, plantations were unprofitable long term so long as they were worked by slave labour.

    Also, since the slave population doubled, clearly there was an excess of labour for the job in hand.

    That expressed itself after emancipation when plantations only needed to employ labour as needed.

    In 1854, 20,000 plus Bajans died in the Cholera Epidemic and still 50 years later 20,000 left for panama, and many many more for the US..

    We have for centuries had more people than we can employ in Barbados.

    That’s a fact.

    Like

  • The only conclusion is we have always been subsidized!!

    Like

  • There is absolutely no need to resort to name calling just face the facts like adults

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    Ya john….but ya will be subsidized no more…we will see to it, not off the backs of the descendants of slaves.

    Go look for work, honest work.

    Like

  • John

    Name calling is their forte and so far you have done an admirable job ignoring the ad hominem comments.

    In your above it seems that you are suggesting that BIM was a money laundering site.

    Like

  • Help me…
    How did you arrive at such a suggestion?

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 8:54 PM #

    “The Profitability of Sugar Planting in the British West Indies, 1650-1834” by J. R. Ward utterly disproves your argument but you prattle on as though this research did not exist.

    It is clear that you have no interest in good peer reviewed research so I will leave you to your fantasies.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 8:56 PM #
    “The only conclusion is we have always been subsidized!!”

    Subsidized by whom and in what manner??

    “The Groans of the Plantations” which you recommended mostly seems to be a self serving complaint by the plantocracy that Britain was making to much money off of taxing sugar and enforcing laws that it had to be shipped in British vessels (an indirect tax). Taxes are the exact opposite of subsidies.

    Like

  • In your above it seems that you are suggesting that BIM was a money laundering site.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Except the money/profits were eaten by our ancestors!!

    Like

  • Peter

    Surely you know the ACP negotiated prices for sugar above world market prices with the UK for years before the UK joined the EU.

    Have you ever heard the term sugar quotas?

    Ok, you have been over and away for 40 years but for crying out aloud, you cannot be that ignorant of your own country’s history.

    Have you ever even heard of Tate and Lisle?

    … or the Lome (with an acute) convention?

    Like

  • If you check on the origin of the word plantocracy you will find it did not even exist before 1835!!

    Could not possibly apply to the 1600’s.

    Like

  • “The Profitability of Sugar Planting in the British West Indies, 1650-1834” by J. R. Ward utterly disproves your argument but you prattle on as though this research did not exist.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I found nothing in Ward to dispute the fact that the Island of Barbados is 166 sq. miles or that the slave population doubled between the census of the 1680’s and 1817.

    If you look at Schomburgk you will see the population of Barbados in 1848 was about 122K!

    In the next 100 or so years it had doubled.

    What I did discover was that there are two schools of thought, one came up with the conclusion “unprofitable” the other, Ward’s, found the opposite after making many assumptions.

    Me, I just used my common sense!!

    Like

  • … and if you are looking for the retained earnings up to the early 60’s look no further than the Deep Water Harbour and QEH.

    But they were never put for the rainy day back so the period of bust has got to the state where GOB ends up subsidizing the industry.

    Simple Simon and the rest of Barbados are subsidizing the Industry with their tax dollars

    They can say, at least we have the Deep Water Harbour and QEH to show to justify the subsidy!!

    Like

  • Subsidized by whom and in what manner??
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Right now, by SS et al!!

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    If according to the demons, enslaving and brutalizing millions of Africans was nit a crime, how could the proceeds from that enslaving, selling etc be money laundering, which is a crime…

    John…ya will know soon enough when all contracts dry up, no more access to pensioners and taxpayer’s money…just watch for it.

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    If according to the two BU demons, enslaving and brutalizing millions of Africans was NOT a crime, how could the proceeds from that enslaving, selling of Black people etc be money laundering, which IS a crime…

    Ya dont get to choose.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 11:21 PM #
    “Surely you know the ACP negotiated prices for sugar above world market prices with the UK for years before the UK joined the EU.”

    John, I know that sugar was subsidized in the 20th century. You, however, said that “… we have always been subsidized.” You were arguing that it was subsidized during the era of slavery.

    Who subsidized sugar production in Barbados between 1642 and 1834… and in what manner?

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @John September 29, 2017 at 11:39 PM #
    “there are two schools of thought, one came up with the conclusion “unprofitable” the other, Ward’s, found the opposite after making many assumptions.”

    You have completely misread Ward. You and the others who allege that the sugar industry was unprofitable make a bunch of assumptions about the effects of limited land area, population growth, lack of new technology, drought, flood, hurricane, disease, etc.

    Ward makes no assumptions at all, but simply understands the definition of profit… and so finds the historical accounting records which show the profit. The historical accounting records that he points to are irrefutable, and they prove that the sugar industry was profitable overall in Barbados between 1643 and 1834.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    The degree of economic illiteracy here is staggering.

    sub·si·dy, noun
    a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

    In the context of the Barbados sugar industry in the era of slavery it means a grant from the British Crown and Parliament to the sugar plantations. This simply did not happen. The closest thing was the grants given for recovery after natural disasters like hurricanes, but these sums, though large, were a tiny fraction of the revenue that the British Crown and Parliament derived from taxing the Barbados sugar industry. So it is idiotic to claim that the Barbados sugar industry in the era of slavery was “subsidized.”

    mon·ey laun·der·ing, noun
    the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses.

    In the context of the Barbados sugar industry in the era of slavery there is a strong case that the profits were “illegally obtained money” as they were the proceeds from the theft of labour, but there was absolutely no attempt at “concealment of the origins” of this money. It was displayed openly in conspicuous consumption and bragged about.

    Like

  • John

    I take your point on the laundering.

    Showing the profitability of the sugar regime prior to emancipation is THE sine qua non of the reparationists,hence you will never be able to get an agreement as their case will be through the eddoes.They cannot rely on the one off payment alone as that was also paid to the Niger delta kings.

    The difference between a person who only relies on book knowledge as opposed to some one who marries practical knowledge with historical facts as opposed to assumptions and uses common sense is stark.

    Like

  • peterlawrencethompson

    @Vincent
    The difference here is stark. I am open to learning the truth.. you and john have your minds already made up so you have to resort to lies to defend your illusions.

    Knowing the actual definition of “money laundering” is not “book learning:” it is the difference between literacy and ignorance.

    Like

  • Their arguments have been destroyed over and over. But there is no end to their silly prattle; they will not stop lying.

    Above their computer is the verse “The race is not given to the swift nor the strong but he who endures until the end.”

    I saw this quote “Time will inevitably uncover dishonesty and lies. History has no place for them”. I hope this is true and the lies of John do not become a part of the permanent record.

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    Also well documented exists …so there is massive proof in every slave museum across the globe. .

    As I said, I have met the likes of these two demons before, life never ends well for them, the last one had me so disgusted, I never attended her funeral, did not want that blighted spirit or aura following anywhere..

    “mon·ey laun·der·ing, noun
    the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses.

    In the context of the Barbados sugar industry in the era of slavery there is a strong case that the profits were “illegally obtained money” as they were the proceeds from the theft of labour, but there was absolutely no attempt at “concealment of the origins” of this money. It was displayed openly in conspicuous consumption and bragged about.”

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    A way will soon be found to arrest the demons and creeps who glorify colonialism.

    “Stop glorifying colonialism. Have we already forgotten the starvation, plundering, and sheer brutality?

    Joseph McQuade, University of Toronto September 29, 2017 Quartz India
    India-Colonialism-British rule

    Still looking for facts? (Creative Commons/Wikimedia)
    Recently an academic article, asserting the historical benefits of colonialism, created an outcry and a petition with over 10,000 signatures calling for its removal.

    The Case for Colonialism, published in Third World Quarterly by Bruce Gilley, argues Western colonialism was both “objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate” in most places where it existed.

    Gilley, an associate professor of political science at Portland State University, claims the solution to poverty and economic underdevelopment in parts of the Global South is to reclaim “colonial modes of governance; by recolonizing some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch.”
    Understandably, the article faces widespread criticism for whitewashing a horrific history of human rights abuses. Current Affairs compared Gilley’s distortion of history to Holocaust denial.

    Last week, after many on the journal’s editorial board resigned, the author issued a public apology for the “pain and anger” his article may have caused.

    Whether the article is ultimately retracted or not, its wide circulation necessitates that its claims be held up to careful historical scrutiny. As well, in light of current public debates on censorship and free speech versus hate speech, this is a discussion well worth having. Although this debate may seem as though it is merely academic, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Although it may seem colonialist views are far behind us, a 2014 YouGov poll revealed 59% of British people view the British Empire as “something to be proud of.” Those proud of their colonial history outnumber critics of the Empire three to one. Similarly, 49% believe the Empire benefited its former colonies.

    Such views, often tied to nostalgia for old imperial glory, can help shape the foreign and domestic policies of Western countries.

    Gilley has helped to justify these views by getting his opinions published in a peer review journal. In his article, Gilley attempts to provide evidence which proves colonialism was objectively beneficial to the colonized. He says historians are simply too politically correct to admit colonialism’s benefits.
    In fact, the opposite is true. In the overwhelming majority of cases, empirical research clearly provides the facts to prove colonialism inflicted grave political, psychological and economic harm on the colonized.

    It takes a highly selective misreading of the evidence to claim that colonialism was anything other than a humanitarian disaster for most of the colonized. The publication of Gilley’s article—despite the evidence of facts—calls into question the peer review process and academic standards of The Third World Quarterly.
    Colonialism in India

    As the largest colony of the world’s largest imperial power, India is often cited by apologists for the British Empire as an example of “successful” colonialism. Actually, India provides a much more convincing case study for rebutting Gilley’s argument.

    With a population of over 1.3 billion and an economy predicted to become the world’s third-largest by 2030, India is a modern day powerhouse. While many attribute this to British colonial rule, a look at the facts says otherwise.

    From 1757 to 1947, the entire period of British rule, there was no increase in per capita income within the Indian subcontinent. This is a striking fact, given that, historically speaking, the Indian subcontinent was traditionally one of the wealthiest parts of the world.

    As proven by the macroeconomic studies of experts such as KN Chaudhuri, India and China were central to an expansive world economy long before the first European traders managed to circumnavigate the African cape.

    During the heyday of British rule, or the British Raj, from 1872 to 1921, Indian life expectancy dropped by a stunning 20%. By contrast, during the 70 years since independence, Indian life expectancy has increased by approximately 66%, or 27 years. A comparable increase of 65% can also be observed in Pakistan, which was once part of British India.

    Although many cite India’s extensive rail network as a positive legacy of British colonialism, it is important to note the railroad was built with the express purpose of transporting colonial troops inland to quell revolt. And to transport food out of productive regions for export, even in times of famine.

    This explains the fact that during the devastating famines of 1876-1879 and 1896-1902, in which 12 to 30 million Indians starved to death, mortality rates were highest in areas serviced by British rail lines.
    Colonialism did not benefit the colonized

    India’s experience is highly relevant for assessing the impact of colonialism, but it does not stand alone as the only example to refute Gilley’s assertions. Gilley argues current poverty and instability within the Democratic Republic of the Congo proves the Congolese were better off under Belgian rule. The evidence says otherwise.

    Since independence in 1960, life expectancy in the Congo has climbed steadily, from around 41 years on the eve of independence to 59 in 2015. This figure remains low compared to most other countries in the world. Nonetheless, it is high compared to what it was under Belgian rule.
    Under colonial rule, the Congolese population declined by estimates ranging from three million to 13 million between 1885 and 1908 due to widespread disease, a coercive labour regime, and endemic brutality.

    Gilley argues the benefits of colonialism can be observed by comparing former colonies to countries with no significant colonial history. Yet his examples of the latter erroneously include Haiti (a French colony from 1697 to 1804), Libya (a direct colony of the Ottoman Empire from 1835 and of Italy from 1911), and Guatemala (occupied by Spain from 1524 to 1821).

    By contrast, he neglects to mention Japan, a country that legitimately was never colonized and now boasts the third largest GDP on the planet, as well as Turkey, which up until recently was widely viewed as the most successful secular country in the Muslim world.
    These counter-examples disprove Gilley’s central thesis that non-Western countries are by definition incapable of reaching modernity without Western “guidance.”

    The ConversationIn short, the facts are in, but they do not paint the picture that Gilley and other imperial apologists would like to claim. Colonialism left deep scars on the Global South and for those genuinely interested in the welfare of non-Western countries, the first step is acknowledging this.

    Joseph McQuade, SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow, Centre for South Asian Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto.
    This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. We welcome your comments at ideas.india@qz.com.”

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    Wannabe colonizers longing for a repeat to enrich their future generations through evil, brutality, rapes, murders, thefts and greed will be destroyed mercilessly and brutally this time around, their killing will be legendary……the stuff of legends to be recorded for prosperity for centuries…as a warning and lesson to future colonizing demons who glorify in and enrich themselves off the misery of others..

    John and Vincent the demons, be warned.

    Like

  • Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger.

    These are the true powerful of the earth, the truly wealthy, intelligent, powerful…all others are frauds and thieves….nobodies.

    Oseola McCarty (1908-1999)
    She is one of the most amazing women in the world who is inspired by millions of people around the world for her donation of $150,000 for the scholarship of the University of Southern Mississippi. While this may not have been the largest single donation the school ever received,what was unique was that she had saved the money over the course of her life time from her modest earnings washing other people’s clothes.

    Oseola McCarty was born, reared and started her education in Mississippi. When she was in the sixth grade, McCarty left school to care for her ailing aunt and never returned to school. For more than 75 years, she earned her living as a laundress. She did laundry for three generations of some Hattiesburg, Miss., families.

    McCarty never owned a car; she walked everywhere she went, pushing a shopping cart nearly a mile to get groceries. She rode with friends to attend services at the Friendship Baptist Church. She did not subscribe to any newspaper, considering the expense an extravagance. Similarly, although she owned a black and white television, she only received transmissions via the airways. In 1947, her uncle gave her the house in which she lived until her death. She also received some money from her aunt and mother when they died, which she also placed into savings.

    “I want to help somebody’s child go to college,” she said after announcing the donation. Her gift endowed the Oseola McCarty Scholarship. “I’m too old to get an education, but they can.” When asked about her ability to save so much money she says simply, “I didn’t buy things I didn’t need, The Lord helped me, and he’ll help you, too. It’s an honor to be blessed like that.”

    In 1998, she was awarded an honorary degree from USM, the first such degree awarded by the university. She received scores of awards and other honors recognizing her unselfish spirit, and President Bill Clinton presented her with a Presidential Citizens Medal, the nation’s second highest civilian award, during a special White House Ceremony. She also won the United Nations’ coveted Avicenna Medal for educational commitment. In June 1996, Harvard University awarded McCarty an honorary doctorate alongside Maya Lin, Walter Annenberg, and Judith Jameson.

    She passed away Sept. 26, 1999 from a cancer leaving a golden lesson of simplicity for all of us. A collection of McCarty’s views on life, work, faith, saving, and relationships can be found in her book, Simple Wisdom for Rich Living, published by Longstreet Press in 1996.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s