I’ve heard a crazy claim about slavery in England (1 Viewer)

[Ahsoka]

From more than one place The claim is that England abolished slavery all the way back in 1102. The first time I heard this I was very skeptical, because it sounds crazy. So I looked into it, and yeah, it was crazy.

Quick answer: no Britain did not abolish slavery in 1102. They abolished slavery in 1834 which is just a tiny bit later than claimed. And while slavery was technically abolished, in reality, former slaves were required to work for free to their former owners until 1839. And after that, it was still present in British colonies in some capacities.

Longer answer: people who say this are referencing a moment when Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury said that slavery was immoral. The church was important at the time, and this archbishop was very highly regarded (he later became a saint). However, his statement had no effect legally on the country. People still could, and did, own slaves, and there was nothing wrong with it legally. Were there people who did listen to the archbishop and may have cut down or stopped owing slaves? Sure. Was there a decrease in slavery over the next centuries? Sure. Was he the main reason for that and/or did it have any effect on the legal system (which it needed in order for slavery to be abolished)? No. Slavery continued after, in various forms, and it was okay legally. So you definitely can’t credit England as abolishing slavery in 1102, and quite frankly, anyone who says that either heard it from someone else but doesn’t actually know any details, or is purposely misleading others in hopes they don’t check for themselves. And that being said, I won’t be offended if anyone wants to check my information for themselves, I wouldn’t ever be offended at that But this is a clear example of not checking for yourself, you end up with easily verifiable information that’s over 700 years wrong and gives a very flawed impression of reality.

 

[Ahsoka]

Oh yeah, history taglist
@Lexie @Nyaz @Dreamer_of_Songs @Nina @velvet @AuGamer1987 @BaeChohee

 

[catonkatonk]

It's kind of unbelievable on its face when you just stop and think about who was involved in the transatlantic slave trade

 

[Ahsoka]

It's kind of unbelievable on its face when you just stop and think about who was involved in the transatlantic slave trade

Yeah. That said, you could be involved in the slave trade but abolish slavery, or abolish the slave trade but still have slavery legalized. The US and Great Britain both fall in the second category. That being said, to supposedly abolish slavery in 1102, but still be involved in the Atlantic slave trade up to 1807, that would have to be an extremely exceptional case you’d probably need to generate a million random universes to have a chance of it happening

 

[Chohee_nyang]

Wow actually we were ruled by America before we got independence....

 

[Nina]

The claim is that England abolished slavery all the way back in 1102. The first time I heard this I was very skeptical, because it sounds crazy. So I looked into it, and yeah, it was crazy.

Is this a claim from a few people that wants their country's reputation to look better in comparison to others that also has a history of slaves

 

[Ahsoka]

Is this a claim from a few people that wants their country's reputation to look better in comparison to others that also has a history of slaves

Probably in one of the places definitely, it was a video about how Britain is great in regards to slaves, and iirc they even followed up the British “fact” by emphasizing that the US didn’t (mostly) abolish slavery in 1865.

 

[Nina]

Probably in one of the places definitely, it was a video about how Britain is great in regards to slaves, and iirc they even followed up the British “fact” by emphasizing that the US didn’t (mostly) abolish slavery in 1865.

Interesting take this person wants to stand by.

That person needs to look into how the poor and cheap labor workers were treated by the British under British rule even well into the 1900s.
They did research to say they did research and that's it.

 

[Ahsoka]

Interesting take this person wants to stand by.

That person needs to look into how the poor and cheap labor workers were treated by the British under British rule even well into the 1900s.
They did research to say they did research and that's it.

They’d probably point out that it isn’t “technically slavery”. Just like how the US abolished slavery for free people in 1865, so people who still wanted to own black people got around it by putting black people in prison for made up reasons to imprison them, because there it was legal. So someone can claim that slavery ended for free people in the US then, but there’s a difference between law vs what things are like in practice. It doesn’t make a difference in reality, but they’ll probably claim it does.

 

[Nina]

I like telling people two things can be true at the same time.

but for someone one still has to be “better” than the other.

 

[Nina]

Mobile quotes.

 

[dark_tranquility]

From more than one place The claim is that England abolished slavery all the way back in 1102. The first time I heard this I was very skeptical, because it sounds crazy. So I looked into it, and yeah, it was crazy.

Quick answer: no Britain did not abolish slavery in 1102. They abolished slavery in 1834 which is just a tiny bit later than claimed. And while slavery was technically abolished, in reality, former slaves were required to work for free to their former owners until 1839. And after that, it was still present in British colonies in some capacities.

Longer answer: people who say this are referencing a moment when Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury said that slavery was immoral. The church was important at the time, and this archbishop was very highly regarded (he later became a saint). However, his statement had no effect legally on the country. People still could, and did, own slaves, and there was nothing wrong with it legally. Were there people who did listen to the archbishop and may have cut down or stopped owing slaves? Sure. Was there a decrease in slavery over the next centuries? Sure. Was he the main reason for that and/or did it have any effect on the legal system (which it needed in order for slavery to be abolished)? No. Slavery continued after, in various forms, and it was okay legally. So you definitely can’t credit England as abolishing slavery in 1102, and quite frankly, anyone who says that either heard it from someone else but doesn’t actually know any details, or is purposely misleading others in hopes they don’t check for themselves. And that being said, I won’t be offended if anyone wants to check my information for themselves, I wouldn’t ever be offended at that But this is a clear example of not checking for yourself, you end up with easily verifiable information that’s over 700 years wrong and gives a very flawed impression of reality.

I know of this ancestor of mine they said he/she lived to 93 which is impossible in 400-1200
so the whole relationship line is stuffed lol
200 years backward which is flawed

 

[Ahsoka]

I know of this ancestor of mine they said he/she lived to 93 which is impossible in 400-1200
so the whole relationship line is stuffed lol
200 years backward which is flawed

I know people could live quite long, at least to 80s, back then. It’s not particularly likely though usually

 

[dark_tranquility]

I know people could live quite long, at least to 80s, back then. It’s not particularly likely though usually

it just seemed a bit weird when peeps died in their 20s and 30s
also as I said. the whole 1200-200 up to about 700 make no sense
Ragna Lodbrok isn't fully real but his sons were???

80s seems fair but not as likely as you say

 

[Ahsoka]

it just seemed a bit weird when peeps died in their 20s and 30s
also as I said. the whole 1200-200 up to about 700 make no sense
Ragna Lodbrok isn't fully real but his sons were???

80s seems fair but not as likely as you say

It’s not common, that’s what I said in my comment. The common belief that most people were dead by 20-30 isn’t what happened though. People think that because the average life was 30ish, but that’s because child mortality was high, which made the average low. An easy example is how if there’s 2 people, one who dies at one year old and the other who dies at 100 years old, the average is only 50 years ish, despite one of them living to 100. Back then, living to 50s or 60s was totally normal, just as long as you don’t die as a baby. 93 would be very usual though, I don’t disagree with that.

 

[dark_tranquility]

It’s not common, that’s what I said in my comment. The common belief that most people were dead by 20-30 isn’t what happened though. People think that because the average life was 30ish, but that’s because child mortality was high, which made the average low. An easy example is how if there’s 2 people, one who dies at one year old and the other who dies at 100 years old, the average is only 50 years ish, despite one of them living to 100. Back then, living to 50s or 60s was totally normal, just as long as you don’t die as a baby. 93 would be very usual though, I don’t disagree with that.

I agree with you

some mathematics in there.

Lucky for me there is Geni and Family Search