Legacies of British Slave-ownership

[Hope]

When slavery was abolished in Britain, slave-owners were compensated by the Government to the tune of a modern equivalent £17 billion.  A lot of that money found its way into the various industries that were beginning to develop at the time - the railways, shipping, industry, etc.

Have you got slave compensation in your family background?  Your forebears wouldn't have had to be particularly rich - research by University College London shows that it was a fairly common state of affairs.

See whether your family crops up on the database at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

(PS  I've checked my paternal family name and a second family name in that area, and got nil returns; my maternal family name gives a single return (2 slaves owned by a woman) and an associated family name gives a nil return.)

[Owlswing]

When slavery was abolished in Britain, slave-owners were compensated by the Government to the tune of a modern equivalent £17 billion.  A lot of that money found its way into the various industries that were beginning to develop at the time - the railways, shipping, industry, etc.

Have you got slave compensation in your family background?  Your forebears wouldn't have had to be particularly rich - research by University College London shows that it was a fairly common state of affairs.

See whether your family crops up on the database at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

(PS  I've checked my paternal family name and a second family name in that area, and got nil returns; my maternal family name gives a single return (2 slaves owned by a woman) and an associated family name gives a nil return.)

Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!

I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.

[Hope]

Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!

I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.

Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves.  Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved.  Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .

[Owlswing]

Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!

I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.

Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves.  Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved.  Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .

No thanks! I have enough black sheep in my family history - it has been very well researched and I am thankful that slave-owning is not included as people as low on the social ladder as most of my family WERE the slaves but were also white British people.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Somebody cue the violins. Seems that there has been a constant black cloud over matty's family for centuries. Or perhaps some ones imagination and exaggerations gone overboard.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Well I put in my adopted fathers surname and some dude with the same last name was compensated for 33 slaves. Guess he had a plantation in Jamaica. Don't know that because one has the same surname means they are a relation.

[Anchorman]

Didn't hsave to search this site.
One of my ancestors on my grandmother's side was John Brown of Priesthill - shot in front of his wife and children for refusing the "Test Act".
His brother and nephew were sold into white slavery in the West Indies by the government  agents.

[jeremyp]

Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!

I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.

Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves.  Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved.  Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .

No thanks! I have enough black sheep in my family history - it has been very well researched and I am thankful that slave-owning is not included as people as low on the social ladder as most of my family WERE the slaves but were also white British people.

Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors. 

I tried my paternal family name and found six people.  However, I have no idea if they are related to me in any way and if they are, so what? 

[Hope]

Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.

Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?

The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences.  I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.

[floo]

Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.

Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?

The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences.  I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.

Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?

[Hope]

Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?

Your two sentences don't match, Floo.  There is nothing in the Bible or Christian doctrine that suggests that "one is responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors", so the claptrap you refer to is jeremy's not Christianity's or the Bible's.  I understand that some forms of psychotherapy seek to find events in the past that the client has suffered or has knowledge of that could lead to particular behaviour patterns.  IIRC, its called regressive therapy.

It has nothing to do with the client being responsible for ther ancestors' actions; rather, it is looking for ancestors' behaviour that might explain present behaviour.  That sounds like ancestral responsibility.

[jeremyp]

Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.

Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?

The Lord passed before him [Moses], and proclaimed,
‘The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.’

That's God punishing the descendants.

The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences.  I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.

You do?  What kind of ignoramus are you to believe that modern psychotherapists think that we suffer the consequences of our ancestors back for seven generations?  I never even knew any of my great grandparents (a mere three generations).

You don't half come up with some claptrap sometimes.

[floo]

Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?

Your two sentences don't match, Floo.  There is nothing in the Bible or Christian doctrine that suggests that "one is responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors", so the claptrap you refer to is jeremy's not Christianity's or the Bible's.  I understand that some forms of psychotherapy seek to find events in the past that the client has suffered or has knowledge of that could lead to particular behaviour patterns.  IIRC, its called regressive therapy.

It has nothing to do with the client being responsible for ther ancestors' actions; rather, it is looking for ancestors' behaviour that might explain present behaviour.  That sounds like ancestral responsibility.

The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences.  I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.

You were implying that the evil deity was going to punish future generations for something their ancestors did wrong!

[trippymonkey]

Seems like that alright.
We have humans with greater moral value than this bloody awful dictator ?!?!!?!?

[floo]

Seems like that alright.
We have humans with greater moral value than this bloody awful dictator ?!?!!?!?

Agreed!

[BashfulAnthony]

Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors.

Where is there anything referring to responsibility for one's ancestor's behaviour within Christian doctrine?

The Lord passed before him [Moses], and proclaimed,
‘The Lord, the Lord,
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty,
but visiting the iniquity of the parents
upon the children
and the children’s children,
to the third and the fourth generation.’

That's God punishing the descendants.

The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences.  I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this.

You do?  What kind of ignoramus are you to believe that modern psychotherapists think that we suffer the consequences of our ancestors back for seven generations?  I never even knew any of my great grandparents (a mere three generations).

You don't half come up with some claptrap sometimes.

I quite agree, that really is a silly post.

[Sriram]

You do?  What kind of ignoramus are you to believe that modern psychotherapists think that we suffer the consequences of our ancestors back for seven generations?  I never even knew any of my great grandparents (a mere three generations).

You don't half come up with some claptrap sometimes.

We have seen that epigenetic consequences of our behavior can affect up to at least 5 generations. It could even be seven perhaps.  So...the bible is quite right I think!

[Hope]

You were implying that the evil deity was going to punish future generations for something their ancestors did wrong!

Well, at least you've got it the right way round now, Floo - the ancestor being responsible for the suffering of the descendants - not the other way round.  Biblically, 7 is a very important number, and such references may not be literally 7 generations - it might be more or less, but if we look at a less specifically individual case, we can see that the consequences of an act can rumble on for generations.  As you will probably know, modern Iraq and Iran were created in the early 20th century by the deployment of a pencil and ruler belonging to a British civil servant (in much the same way as modern-day India and Pakistan were created out of India).  There was no consideration for tribal and ethnic boundaries, or location of Shia and Shiite majorities.  We continue to see the repercussions today, and Britain suffers as a result.  We are now at least 3, if not 4 generations down the line, and I doubt the problems will be solved before the middle of this century (so 6 generations later) - if then. 

On a more individual basis, if someone irresponsibly develops a massive debt over their lifetime, it is likely that that person's descendents to several removes will suffer from their irresponsibilities.

Think then of events like the Sea Empress, Exxon Valdes or Deepwater Horizon 'accidents'.  How long will nature and (in the Deepwater Horizon's case) the Gulf of Mexico's fishing industry take to fully recover from these events.

Is it punishment that is promised, or is it simply a statement of common sense concerning the time it takes for a family/nation to fully recover from a particular irresponsible action or event?

[OH MY WORLD!]

You better believe God will visit the iniquity of sinful fathers and mothers on their sinful children and their children. But of course jeremy and floo opt to ignore context and the full picture, like God's promise to forgive those that repent, cause that would just mess with their ignorant atheist picture of scripture.



For those that want the context and full picture please google and read any commentary on Exodus 34 and also Exodus 20. jeremy is not a source with any credibility in understanding and explaining scripture. 

[Hope]

You better believe God will visit the iniquity of sinful fathers and mothers on their sinful children and their children. But of course jeremy and floo opt to ignore context and the full picture, like God's promise to forgive those that repent, cause that would just mess with their ignorant atheist picture of scripture.

Johnny, if you read the Bible, the wording is such as to indicate that descendents will be visited with the consequences to 7 generations.  What it doesn't necessarily do is show that God will specifically use this as a divine punishment or whether the suffering will work itself out to the 7th generation, as I've suggested in a previous post.  I'm not quite sure what the Hebrew, especially, indicates.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Talk about washing your dirty linen in public!

I didn't realise that you were such a masochist.

Matt, its all about the fact that many ordinary citizens owned/part-owned slaves.  Nothing to be ashamed of because of how many people were involved.  Try your family and its immediately associated ones - maternal family and grandmothers' .

No thanks! I have enough black sheep in my family history - it has been very well researched and I am thankful that slave-owning is not included as people as low on the social ladder as most of my family WERE the slaves but were also white British people.

Contrary to Christian doctrine, you are not responsible for the behaviour of your ancestors. 

Is that Christian doctrine Jeremy? Sounds like an unskilled confusion on your part, of the doctrine of original sin.....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?

Floo exposed again as not knowing what's in the bible

[Shaker]

Of course one isn't responsible for the behaviour of their ancestors! Where do you get the notion that many modern psychotherapists agree with that Biblical claptrap?

Floo exposed again as not knowing what's in the bible

Does the Bible then support Hope's statement, to wit: "The Bible teaches that if someone does something wrong, their descendants to the 7th generation will suffer the consequences.  I believe that many modern psychotherapists agree with this" (#8)?

Where?

Which passages?

(You'll note that these psychotherapists are not identified by name, which shouldn't have been much of a stretch if there are "many" of them).

[jeremyp]

You better believe God will visit the iniquity of sinful fathers and mothers on their sinful children and their children. But of course jeremy and floo opt to ignore context and the full picture, like God's promise to forgive those that repent, cause that would just mess with their ignorant atheist picture of scripture.

So God is going to punish me for things I haven't done, but he'll let me off as long as I repent of those things I haven't done.  Why doesn't he just not punish me in the first place?

Has it ever occurred to you that your god is a numpty?

[jeremyp]

Is that Christian doctrine Jeremy? Sounds like an unskilled confusion on your part, of the doctrine of original sin.....

You ever heard of Original Sin?  You should look it up.  IT's not Biblical but a lot of your Christian friends are very big on it e.g. Johnny C above.