This film may be taken as a verdict on the entire slave trade, therefore it seems odd how Spielberg apparently did not r
-
AndrewWalker747 — 17 years ago(May 08, 2008 07:56 AM)
Thank You for being someone who knows the facts. The British crusade to stamp out slavery was probably one of the few examples in history of humane imperialism; everyone, I mean everyone, objected to Britain's "impeding" with their local trade affairs: Spanish, Muslims, Latin American Countries, African tribal leaders (from what I have read they were the biggest objectors). Africa did not end slavery itself; it was British Imperialism that actually ended it. Even in some places of Africa today, slavery still exists (most specifically in Sudan, which the British never firmly had control over).
While it is true that Britain had its big toe stuck in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade for centuries, slavery had been practiced by every culture around the world since Ancient times with hardly any objections being raised. The fact that Britain was one of the first to abolish it (I believe Holland was officially the first) and devote substantial finiancial and military resources to police the African coasts (in both West and East Africa) and compensate former slave-owners to end this horrific crime, speaks dividends about the credit Britain is due. -
AndrewWalker747 — 17 years ago(May 09, 2008 12:56 PM)
Most simplistic generalizations like the previous posters are simply self-construed, un-relaistic hypotheses. They're theories fit together like a Jenga puzzle; keep pulling out the facts one at a time and the whole thing comes crashing down.
-
delisadecastro — 12 years ago(October 10, 2013 04:57 AM)
Old post, but couldn't resist itReply to both andrew and westar: you are both delusional thinking in 1800's British acted whatsoever in terms of humanitarian reasons. Are you british?
It is well known, by almost every historians, the real reason England forbidded slave traffic and persecuted it: they wanted to increase THEIR consumer market for the rising industrial production of the country. Slaves can't buy products, but paying workers can. (duh). England was an imperialist nation at that time!
That is why, and only why, they started the abolition persecution. Don't kid yourself. No humanitarism motivation in that!
Is this how british people interpretate the british imperialism? If so, I'm truely sad that after so many years, you still haven't revised your own history and realized your own mystakes.
No response from the 2 british posters? Well
It is borderline ridiculous that you 2 don't understand the reason why England FINALLY DECIDED THAT, AFTER MANY YEARS OF SLAVERING PEOPLE THEMSELVES, IT WAS A BAD THING TO DO!
To sum up: England is a HYPROCRITE! and only persecuted slavery to serve it's own economical interests.
Advice: read more. -
bertrambunter — 17 years ago(May 24, 2008 09:21 AM)
Wwestar - I'm sorry to say that I think the British pursuit of the remaining slavers was based more on determination to prevent the slavers from gaining any financial/commercial advantage rather than any sense of altruism. Much in the way that the Yankee industrialists objected to slavery, for the same reasons. Not to disparage their efforts, the end result was the eventual lessening of human suffering and indignity, whatever the motive.
The fact is, as was shown clearly in the film, slavery commenced with the kidnap and sale of Africans to outsiders (often arab intermediaries) by other Africans. This is not so surprising is it? Take the differences which existed at one time between the various nations of Europe. Despite the fact that all had white skin, they were often at war with each other, murdering and taking each other captive as slaves, etc. There surely would have been no difference with the population of AFrica, divided as it was into tribes, or nations - I doubt skin color was a factor in their actions. And it is equally true that the only slave holding nations still in existence are in AFrica, N adn sub-Sahara.
Had this film been set in an earlier era - say 1790, the British would have been every bit as active as the Spanish and Portuguese, Dutch and French and anyone else inovlved in the slave trade. However,it happens to have been set in 1839 (is it a true story? BTW) and so there would have been no British involved at that point.
So, it's not a case of British good/Spanish nasty at all - just a bit of history.
Certain ethnic minority celebrity spokespeople in the UK, still steadfastly pursuing the dream of massive compensation for anyone who can claim to be descendants of slaves can, however, whistle for it!
They'll get it when we get ours from the Romans, Angles/Saxons, Jutes (who they?) Vikings, Normans, etc etc.
So nobody hold their breath,OK?? -
Senator_Corleone — 14 years ago(January 10, 2012 07:39 AM)
The British naval officer was not "nearly in tears." He was so calm and erudite he was practically in a Kubrick movie. I love his totally non-passionate commands to fire at the end.
Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games. -
coolbluegreen — 13 years ago(April 28, 2012 05:10 PM)
I LOVE Peter Firth as the British naval officer. He is not all "nearly in tears." He is just quietly, coolly, calmly vicious when he's on the stand. He clearly opposes the slave trade, but he is not emotional he's freaking tough. And at the end, that nasty sarcastic message he sends I love it. He's the best. Peter Firth did a brilliant job with that.