Folks like Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, the BBC, The Guardian and all the other professional race baiters insist that slaving profits made Britain rich via the industrial revolution and thus all we white folks, including people like me with Wilberforce DNA, must pay reparations to black people even if like the ubiquitous Alex Scott they are descended from slave owners. This narrative is also taught to our kids in schools and universities. But is it correct? A new publication out today uses what the race baiters and academia opt to ignore: FACTS.
Slavery actually generated less wealth for the UK than sheep farming or, indeed, brewing beer. And while the sheep farming and brewing created private gain so boosting GDP but without any cost to the State which caused higher taxes and effectively impoverished the nation, Slavery came with a material cost to the state both in establishing it but also, from the 1830s, in trying to lead the world in abolishing it.
I wait for David Lammy or the preposterous grifter Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu to make the claim that sheep farming financed the Industrial Revolution. But the facts suggest that it financed more of it than slaving.
The publication c/o the IEA is free to read HERE
I have already sent it to my good wife as it seeks to challenge, with facts, numerous other claims made about the evils of Imperialism as a whole not just the slave trade. For folks who think that the British Empire was an exploitative force for evil which made Britain rich, it asks many rather uncomfortable questions.