181
submitted 4 months ago by partybot@lemmy.ca to c/til@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 36 points 4 months ago

I won’t try to diminish or defend the massive hypocrisy or numerous ethical problems presented by the way the British government handled abolition. I’ll only say that it was better than doing nothing at all.

[-] abbadon420@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago

Better than a kick in the balls, as we like to call it

[-] Brickhead92@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Unless you're into that

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The other option is violent revolution because groups of people can only be abused for so long before they end up at a point where they realize they either die enslaved or die trying to be free.

I think the Brits saw what happened in France earlier on and realized that you can't abuse people too much, too far, for too long .... because at one point, masses of people will start killing one another.

this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
181 points (98.9% liked)

Today I Learned (TIL)

6549 readers
10 users here now

You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?

/c/til is a community for any true knowledge that you would like to share, regardless of topic or of source.

Share your knowledge and experience!

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS