Slave OWNER compensation was still being paid off by British taxpayers in 2015

[Secular Sanity]

... actually, CC, I'm afraid I'm going to leave it there. There are other forums, and the best of them take measures to ensure people like Syne aren't able to hijack the place for their self-medication.
And yes, that's a bit of an admonishment. I'm aware it'll not lead to any action on anyone's part, other than mine of course... but I'd imagine I'm not the first who just can't be bothered turning up here any more because there's no discussion to be had without the screaming kids getting in the way. I was interested in having this conversation, but some people have a way of dulling the joy.

So take care, and say hi to Trooper for me if she turns up again.

I don't feel like I have to address it anymore. It's not Bells. She had the power to ban you. Syne doesn't. He can be ignored. I've been busy. 

Sorry, but I'm afraid that I don’t know much about the history, but did I listen to these lectures from Yale.

I forgot the guy’s name that said that compensation would have been a lot cheaper than the war.

I think it would be safe to say that Africa was, and still is extremely divided, and that in and of itself aided their involvement in the slave trade, but they also sold members of their own tribes. Greed is universal, is it not, but then again so is empathy.

What do you think the cause of the Civil War was? Some historians say it was about the state’s rights, economics, and political control. I can’t find it, but I watched a lecture years ago about how art and fiction played a huge role. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, for example, and the depictions of the slave ship during the trial for the Zong massacre. It was a lecture about empathy and the (us vs. them) mentally.

Steiner said that individual freedom is achieved when we’re free from our inner drives and outer pressure.

A friend of mine has a sign hanging over the inside of her front door. It says, "The rest of the world." Empathy does free us from our inner cages of our minds, that’s for sure. Unfortunately, common enemies seem to aid in our coherence.

Same ole-same ole, Fernando. Oh, BTW, the Swedish version is quite different.

---

Likewise. Hopefully she's still tied-up in wedding preparations (of a friend) or son finally getting out of the service or it's the continuing outdoor Spring bug everybody's got, etc. Rather than time to scratch off and update the population sign on the outskirts of Podunkaville with another drop in the single digit.

###

Yeah, I’ve made so many things. I’ll have to start a little Pinterest type thread to show you a few when I’m done. My son is returning on the 25th. If I can keep him in one piece (MMA fighting and all) he’ll be returning to school in the fall (fingers crossed). I have three weddings to attend this summer. Guess how much the going rate for wedding gifts are nowadays. They’re $150.00 and that’s not even including the shower gifts.  

See you later, C C.

[RainbowUnicorn]

It's a little-known snippet of history, I believe, but I read about it some time ago. It's hard to make any serious investigation into early Australia without coming across wealthy family names once linked to the slavery (as either owners or traders), and who would probably have been recipients of that compensation to one extent or another, and that information wasn't exactly "hidden", as much as not often spoken about.

The compensatory effort itself is understandable. Slave ownership and usage, particularly in colonial settlements where industrialisation was either impractical due to distance or not yet viable, was widespread and a driving force in economic terms. Making it illegal at the stroke of a pen would have basically cut off the wealth of many families and crippled entire industries. Relative morality put aside for a moment, it would have been an incredibly stupid thing to do. Imagine, for example, that the USA suddenly made the arms industry illegal overnight, and the impact that would have both socially and economically. Social chaos and recession would be only the beginning.
Compensation was designed to ensure that those families and industries affected could put the money into alternative ventures - which they mostly did. I can say with reasonable confidence that Australia would not be what it is today without that money being injected into development. So setting aside any relative modern morality for a moment, it was an effective and sensible measure that ensured a relatively smooth transition from a slave-owning economy to a free(er) one without a significant economic regression.

I seriously doubt that the UK "considers itself better than the US" over how they respectively abolished slavery, and I really don't know where you're getting that from.
But if you did want to make that comparison, I'd suggest you study your own history - with particular reference to the Civil War and its aftermath. Haven't you ever wondered what may have been if the US government had offered some sort of compensation to the South prior to 1861? It was discussed, numerous times... and rejected outright by the North. Perhaps if they'd put a bit more effort into studying the effects in Britain, your own Civil War could have been averted and your modern industrial military complex might have looked very different to what it does now.

indentured slavery by birth class is still culturally accepted and practiced in asian countrys.
tea plantation pickers being one of the biggest.
africa has it also


the irony is that simply by printing money and giving it to people would solve the issue.
in theory...
slavery by gender has been going on a lot longer.
look at the usa where the bathroom gender testing seems to be a thing.
slavery by gender is still culturally acceptable in the usa.
being LGBTQ+ in many countrys makes you equal to slave-rights.

[Syne]

Syne, I'm quite capable of reading and accepting the results of a study even if it does use a term of reference I (and some other economic commentators, I might add) don't feel is applicable.

No such "economic commentators" cited. Can you cite even one?
Googling it only turns up your own post making the claim in this thread.

IOW, yer talkin' out yer ass again, mate.

I'm quite capable of citing that source as a reference because its research and conclusions were reasonably sound.

Alternatives were not even addressed in that article. So your "had compensation payments not been made" is just unsupported opinion. Whereas I've already explained how the US recovered without bribing slave owners.

I have an open mind, you see, and I'm not frightened to cite something because one word in it is going to trigger you into an apoplexy. It was not a bailout. Your big "gotcha" moment (which isn't one) isn't a point central to the discussion, and was initially just an off-the cuff remark on my part that you've latched onto like remora because you don't really have anything else to get worked up about.

No one criticized you for citing that article, mate. Chill. Just realize that your 'use of the word "bailout" is misleading and hyperbolic' also applies to it.
I get that you don't like having your claims questioned and apparent inconsistencies pointed out. But I presume you're an adult who can manage.

You "cited a wiki article" on slavery in Australia when I'd already made it clear in my post that it did exist, but not necessarily in that time period and not in the same structured way it did in the USA and in Britain. Nuance, Syne. Comprehension.

Since no one claimed Australia had slaves "in an organised fashion such as Britain and America" or "in that time period", you're arguing a straw man. Maybe you should work on your own comprehension. And again, I don't give two shits about the nuance of Australia's history.

Look, I am tired of having to address your lack of comprehension and your meaningless bullshit. You're a blot on this place, which is a shame, because some others are a credit and it might have become something more than it is if it hadn't been for your presence. 
I'm not here to help you with your self-esteem issues. No one is. You need to address them some other way, in my opinion. Or maybe it'd be simpler just to say you need to grow up, and understand that not everyone is going to buy into your misunderstood intellectual persona.

Sorry, mate, but I expect adults to be able to support their own claims without crumbling into a heap. If you're just looking for a pat on head, go check your social media.

... actually, CC, I'm afraid I'm going to leave it there. There are other forums, and the best of them take measures to ensure people like Syne aren't able to hijack the place for their self-medication.

I can't "hijack" my own thread. Aside from all your off-topic histrionics, it's still about the OP.

[C C]

Guess how much the going rate for wedding gifts are nowadays. They’re $150.00 and that’s not even including the shower gifts.  

Ain't it ever so... The aggregated maintenance costs of all the various kinds of familiar and cognate relationships (especially with respect to their "events") is unbelievable. Although that gut reaction/dismay isn't tallying the benefits, both collective and individual. Still, one almost envies the reclusive and the lonely occasionally.

Toss in the time-consumption of smartphone social binding, that watering-hole nexus for relatives, friends, and colleagues. The irregular stream of live interruptions, messages to respond to, and image/video files of vacation trips and "look how fast Luke is growing" to seek categories to stash under.

###

[Syne]

Most respectable forums would consider all these off-topic posts sparked by Ben as unacceptable. But here, staying on-topic is apparently the unacceptable behavior.