Are all our historic buildings built on the backs of slaves?

Post Reply New Topic

I seem to think that maybe every historic building structures in the UK from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries such the British Museum, buildings at Greenwich, the Bank of England, possibly even St Paul's Cathedral and so on. It shocks me to hear about the links to slavery but I mean what about in other countries in Europe like France, Holland, Spain, or even in the US, they must have famous and renowned places that were unknowingly to other people built on the backs of slaves. I mean there are structures in Belgium that built on the backs of people working in the Belgian Congo. Most of the buildings throughout the world today are built by people who chose freely to build them and not forced to build to them when they don't want to but I'm not denying that it still sadly happening in some other parts of the world. I know there are people who would very much like to tear those structures down but I seem think it would be better to learn more and teach about it more than trying to destroy history because the times and attitudes were not the same as they are today.

No. Only some. Most slaves in the UK were used as servants to wealthy families in their manor houses because slaves were expensive, and considered a novelty. If anything, they had better conditions then peasant workers had, as peasants had to work for free.
Yes, a slave was not free to come and go as he pleased, but peasant workers had an obligation to do so many hours and days work for the land owner just to be allowed to live on the land,and in those days only wealthy aristrocrats owned land.
I heard an estimated 400 African slaves made it on these shores, as their principle destination was the USA. This was all to do with the ways the trade routes were set up and it goes back to the days before Britain became involved in buying and selling African slaves.
The UK was going through the early stages of the industrial revolution (In my area of Wales UK,this started quite early back in the 1500's onwards, but for most of the UK it was the 1700's onwards). Now if we go back a little and from around the 1300's (Actually from well before that date but from the 1300's onwards it became a major problem), until Britian started trading in African slaves, the African slave traders had been a big problem to the British people as they would come out and ram the British vessels and take the crews and anything else valueable on board. They would also snatch people from the UK and European shores. It was such a problem that at one time few people dare risk living anywhere near the southern shores of England and Wales.
They would take these people to the Middle East to sell them as slaves, as the Muslims gave the highest prices for white Christian slaves because they were said to be the hardest workers as they worked out of their duty to God.
Back in those days it was due to these issues that our Royal Navy was origionally formed in a futile attempt to prevent loss to our merchant ships.
The only long term solution was to make deals with the slave traders and pay them the equivalent high prices by buying black African slaves in exchange for UK goods (A favourite purchase by the slave traders at one time was guns and ammunition).
Britain itself did not have much need for the slaves and so the transatlantic route was formed where slaves were purchased in exchange for UK made goods, and taken direct to the USA (Who did have a healthy demand for slaves to work in their various plantations), and then in exhange for the slaves, they would buy goods like coffee or tobacco from the USA and sell it to the British people. (Sailing ships could not be sailed empty of goods as they had no boyancy and would tip over when at sea, so if their trade was in one direction only, they had to fill the ships fulll of stones for the return journey home, so this transatlantic trading was typical of the owners of the vessels (It was rare for ship owners to own more then two ships. Most only owned one and often the captain was also the ships owner) trying to use every journey they made profitable.
The slave trading part of the journey was actually the most costly part of the journey!
To understand why the sailors had little regards for the slaves they carried was because they were the ones (Or their parents or their grandparents) who had themselves lost loved ones in the past to the slave traders (African pirates), and the conditions that their loved ones had endured were said to have been just as bad, as likewize, slaves had to be packed in as they were the only ballast weight the ship had. To take less slaves and they had to find something else heavy to use in their ships. (As horrid as this sounds, if they didn't, they would have had to use stones which, depending where they were, may have been hard to find).

So the conditions were horrible. The sailors themselves were hardy men who had to be hardy just to be able to stand what the ocean threw their way. It was all a horrible journey and wasn't that pleasant for the sailors either!

Something I did find out looking back through history in my part of the UK (Wales) was that though hardly any African slaves made it into Wales, a great many Chinese slaves came to these shores, and the reason why they came was that they were by far much cheaper to buy then African slaves, as the Chinese were almost giving them away for free because these were their convicts. Britain used to send theirs to Australia. China sent theirs here to Wales, and Swansea was one of their principle destinations. It was said that more Chinese was spoken then Welsh in that city, and even today it has its thriving China town area along with its university dedicated to cater for the yearly influx of students from China who come to Swansea because it is easier to go to places where their own language is spoken as part of daily life.

I don't hear much about people wanting to tear things down because they were built by slaves. It might be good to increase awareness about which structures have been built with slave labor, but tearing them down just gets rid of a perfectly good building. It's not as though the building is celebrating slavery by existing.

Well, slavery was abolished in England in 1772 (the Somerset case), and in all of the UK in 1833. And slavery was never actually formalized in England (unlike the US, where it was enshrined in the Constitution in 1787). Finally, slaves in the UK were not subjected to the same brutal living conditions as in the Americas (sugar and cotton plantations, in particular).

So historic buildings from the (latter half of) 18th century and forward in the UK are probably not built on the backs of slaves.

The buildings may indirectly have been built on the back of millions of Chinese opium addicts, however, as the British opium trade was a major source of income for the empire.

If it's true of England then it must be true of every extant civilisation.

They knew what they were doing. They had been doing it for 4000+ years.

All modern states are built on exploitation. Serfs under feudalism, slaves, wage slaves. Some forms were obviously worse. I'm not happy with our current society, but working for a wage is obviously way better than chattel slavery. But we'd have to tear down our whole society if we wanted to remove all traces of unethical things we did. Unless the structure was built specifically as propaganda for those ideologies (like Confederate "monuments") we should leave them and focus on turning their utility to the public good, including the descendants of those who were once oppressed.