Britain Was Not Built on Slavery, Colonialism Just Benefitted a Handful of Elites: Kristian Niemietz 

The man speaks truth. The vastest majority of people in the UK lived very modest, difficult lives doing work that was little different from slavery in itself. Some of this seems common sense to me without needing any economic training.

One of the benefits of having an Empire was that they could force other nations to open their markets to british goods. And they could forcibly repress the industries in the colonies so that they couldnt compete; for example by violently crushing Indian handlooms. Also they got a continuous supply of cheap (or stolen) raw materials to power the British economy.

They made enough during the Irish famine though hey???

Linked to this. An interesting video on the NCF forum where Rafe Heydel-Mankoo was put against Femi Nylander over the issue of Repatriation payments regarding slavery times. Nylander makes the usual points about Britains wealth from slavery. That the nation and society as a whole became wealthy from it. When Rafe puts the point across that they bought the slaves from black slave masters who became rich from the trade, Nylanders reply is interesting. He agrees that INDIVIDUALS in west Africa did become rich and that perhaps their ancestors estates could be sought out. So there is the point. When it comes to BRITAIN. The NATION must pay (via taxations). When it comes to Africa its INDIVIDUALS that should be sought out. At the time i wish someone had pointer out the distinction being made.

I’m currently writing my dissertation on how we perceive the Empire, I don’t think anybody’s arguing that the Empire’s made the Everyman wealthy, the majority of people would agree that the elites are the ones to benefit the most. But there lies the issue, the UK (at least with regards to governance) is an extremely elitist society. Those same people/ families who profited through colonialism and slavery are the ones who still hold power today (old money). I think the state of current affairs are only highlighting the inequalities in society. Very interesting video keep it up lads

Cost benefit analyses of imperial pasts are sure coming home to roost now in all of Europe .....

The British Empire wasn't great for the economy directly, but it did stop dragged out slugfest with France in Europe and export it abroad. Not having the English and France countryside destroyed every few years made it possible to invest in the economy otherwise there was no point. According to history professor Roy Casagranda industrialization, by having specialized factories, started between 700 and 800 in the Middle East, because it was relatively stable and developed. The steam engine was a game changer for industry, but with industry alone the population could have been much richer then just farming. The Empire was inherited and in part similar to the Vikings. The civilized Norsemen stayed home, the adventures traded and the violent raided. We tend to forget our current system still has these elements. The adventures are startup founders or corporate climbers and the violent become (soccer) hooligans or do extreme sports. To see the how Europeans impressed the world, watch an US American watch a video about the Ultras. The US sees more then it's share of violence, but the sheer shock and awe about the semi organized aggression is something to behold. That same reaction would have been the same for a medieval rural community in England, France, India or the West Indies. The Empire just moved those elements to the edge of the playground.

But those few people who benefited directly invested in state of the art technologies that directly powered the Industrial Revolution. Failed to mention that bit - totally reductive view of wealth transfer

This is a joke. Sometime ago experts claimed that slavery wasn't competitive

0:40 ....and didn't benefitted the Commonwealth. Commonwealth is an Upgraded Version of The Company... With The Rest of Christianity is an Upgraded Version of The Conglomerate. Think Nations, not Tribes. Think Righteousness, not the form of your Cross. ["Think" is already a Disproportionate Request for the Problem we Face I acknowledge that]

5:00 - "redistribution of wealth to the rich" - disagree here. The early 1800s weren't exactly known for having a thriving middle class in Britain. The taxes were paid overwhelmingly by those who had money and land worth taxing. So when Britain did a noble, honorable, and decent thing by ending slavery and literally buying the freedom of all enslaved people, it was the wealthy who paid for it. The advantage of doing this is that it ended the practice immediately. Most other nations banned the trade, but did not emancipate slave for decades, relying on their owners to do it, typically when they passed away. To have the balls to argue that this was a bad thing is a rather perverse joke, honestly, especially from a man who purports to study economics and should know where Britain got its revenue at the time.

This is true. But, blame those at the top for the widespread belief that this or that country as a whole benefitted from colonialism. Invariably, we tend to blame other equally powerless people, and those who benefitted from colonialism and have promoted falsehoods about it, then happily jump on the ‘blame the third world’ or ‘woke’ bandwagon. In the end, they always evade accountability.

Not true

Yes, analytically speaking, great explanation. perfectly true. How about the side effects of it: destroying a whole continent (economically speaking) in order to remake it as a viable colony (supplier of cheap raw material) ? It was a bad idea even for the UK, but it was way worse for the countries on the receiving end of colonialism. To be fair, the UK was not the worst one, but it still sounds like some excuse where none can ever suffice.... Not that any apology will ever be given by "proud" colonial powers of the past: Belgium, Japan, Imperial Germany, France, UK, etc. (roughly in that order, based on my recollection, of genocidal tendencies).

too reductive and simple, not an ounce of nuance. probably pandering to revisionists.

This is objectively incorrect

Are you out of your mind