What does the UK, France and the Netherlands have in common?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...When the rest of history is full of nations that had a habit of fighting over much less, regardless of the practicality of the attempts, are you really going to say that sparing the colonies yet another series of bloody revolutionary wars is not a point in Britain's favor?

Having read this thread as a spectator, mostly, I wonder if the subtext of all of this isn't a rather Catholic need for penance in the expiation of guilt.

England, alone among Europe, has not suffered for their "crimes." France, Germany, Russia, Poland, Belgium, Italy -- virtually the rest of Europe -- have all, as a consequence of their direct or indirect actions, been invaded, conquered, destroyed, ethnically cleansed, partitioned, bankrupted, etc. In contrast, the UK has been largely secure from physical harm perpetrated against them by the rest of Europe (though not against internal strife) for a nearly a millennium.

So does the anger stem, I wonder, from a sense that the UK -- particularly England -- has not done it's fair share of penance for sins perpetrated in much the same manner and to much the same degree as the rest of Europe?

Again, I am an outsider to this, operating from limited data on an internet forum....centered on games that revel in Europeans killing one another....I might have it all wrong.

[Husar]

Interesting observation Seamus, but I think the the fact England hasn't been conquered for a while has affected their self-image far more than it has affected the image others have of England. As has been brought up in this thread, it's always the English/British who bring up their exceptionalism and their unique position and so on whenever the rest of Europe invites them to be just Europeans like the rest of us.

Even in this thread it's the English arguing the whole time about how they are/were better than everyone else and how noone can touch them anyway. As Gelatinous Cube phrased it, British exceptionalism is even stronger than the American kind.

[Pannonian]

Interesting observation Seamus, but I think the the fact England hasn't been conquered for a while has affected their self-image far more than it has affected the image others have of England. As has been brought up in this thread, it's always the English/British who bring up their exceptionalism and their unique position and so on whenever the rest of Europe invites them to be just Europeans like the rest of us.

Even in this thread it's the English arguing the whole time about how they are/were better than everyone else and how noone can touch them anyway. As Gelatinous Cube phrased it, British exceptionalism is even stronger than the American kind.

On the subject of slavery, which is the topic of this thread, it's hard to see the British as anything but exceptional.

[Kadagar_AV]

On the subject of slavery, which is the topic of this thread, it's hard to see the British as anything but exceptional.

Why?

Arabic countries have continued the trade into this millenium...

[InsaneApache]

I think he means that the British abolished slavery and used the Royal Navy to back that up. But I think you made his point for him. Inadvertently.

[Husar]

I think he means that the British abolished slavery and used the Royal Navy to back that up. But I think you made his point for him. Inadvertently.

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

There is a market for it. Until people refuse to own slaves, someone will find a way to provide for the market. My country declared a war on drugs. Nothing can stop drugs from being brought to market save for the absence of that market. The war on drugs is, at best, a quixotic effort. At worst, a farce.

While it must be noted that France took the very first measure towards abolition, they didn't follow up on it very well. England's efforts at the end of the Georgian era and the opening of the Victorian era helped inculcate a broader climate of opposition to the entire institution. It would be hard to assert that any other country has done more to change pro-slavery attitudes or more to interrupt human trafficking.

It is a source of shame that my nation did not abolish the whole thing as part of our declaration of independence, and a travesty that both the Articles and the Constitution supported it. Even after the abolition movement gained broader acceptance, Russia beat us to emancipation by two years.

[Slyspy]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

Perhaps you'd like us to go back in and take over again so that we can stop anyone ever doing ill to anyone else?

[InsaneApache]

I think he meant that the Royal Navy was apparently not very successful at abolishing slavery, slavery is still around everwhere in the world, even former British colonies.

I see. However we were talking about how hubristic and arrogant the British were for using their entire fleet to enforce a domestic law, yes?

Show me another time in history that this has been done. Moreover please furnish me with an example of any country in the world that operated for the whole of humanity.

I wont go on about the moral stance we took not so long ago that also served the whole of humanity.

Perfect? No. Not by a long stretch. Malevolent? Certainly not.