Heated Debate: Slavery, Reparations & Colonialism with Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Kehinde Andrews

25:56So it was mostly women, it was mostly about servants. It wasn't wealth producing, right? The money in the Arab slave trade was the traders. There's actually stories of Arab slave traders who have so much money and they have nowhere to spend it. So what claim can I make to a system that didn't produce money? The difference... It didn't produce money. No, but it didn't produce wealth for the traders, but it didn't produce society. The difference between... The major difference between... Well, there's two major differences. why, again, we should never, never, ever think that modern-day so-called slavery is the same as shatter slavery.

26:27It is not. Shatter slavery is a reduction of someone to a horse, a cow. And in English law, by the way, not American law, and for 150 years, it was the British Empire taking people to America. But there's no comparison of modern-day slavery. It's a bad thing. Don't get me wrong. We shouldn't even call it slavery. The difference between the Arab slave trade and the... I'm not sure modern-day slaves would feel the same way about you. No, words matter. Privilizing the horrors of the leader. For one, modern day slavery is illegal. It's a crime. Slavery was not. It was the thing that we all did. Early in 1980, more tenure about slavery.

27:02No, no, no. You can't compare it to you. You're not chateau. You're not literally legally defined as non-human, which is what my ancestors were. Legally defined as a horse and a cow by the English courts, which is why America then carried on slavery, by the way. Anyway, my point is, the difference between the Arab slave trade, which didn't build Arabic society, was mostly, I said, mostly servants. It's terrible. I'm not saying the Arab slave trade was great. It was horrendous. But European slavery, it turned us into commodities, and it powered the Industrial Revolution. I've heard you argue before this isn't true.

27:33Every single thing that powers the Industrial Revolution, first it's gold, then it's silver, then it's tobacco, then it's indigo, then it's cotton. Every single thing that powered the Industrial Revolution was slave labor. Which one of those things did not come from Atlanta? Which one of those things did not come from the Atlantic trade? We're doing very long answers. Let's stick on this. Which one of those five founding things did not come from the slave labor? Answer the question. The Industrial Revolution. If you look at the top five. So the arguments that have been made by you and by Professor Beckles are that the Industrial Revolution was caused by profits from the slave trade.

28:08That it was caused by profits from the sugar industry. And that it's under investment and under development by Britain and the empire. That's right. Cotton? Sugar? Cotton was not a British Caribbean commodity. That was from America. Who produced the cotton? Yeah, but that was not part of the reparations argument. No, it shouldn't be. It's a bad argument. So look, let him answer. So what gets me is people on the left always look for a bad reason behind any excellence on the part of the West. It couldn't be because of British genius or because of situations and circumstances in this country that we've got the Industrial Revolution.

28:44There has to be a nefarious cause of any great Western achievement. The Industrial Revolution happened because, firstly, you had the Agricultural Revolution in the 17th century, which led to a surplus of labor, which meant you had an excess labor force that was then available to go into industry. You had abundant natural resources where you could literally pick up coal off the ground, and you had iron resources. You had innovation and technology, which was far in excess of what else happened elsewhere. And the reason you have such engineering and innovation technology, if you read Professor Joseph Heinrich from Harvard University's book, which we discussed on your show on the weirdest minds in the world, the weirdest people in the world, the Western mind by the 80th and 19th century was fundamentally different in how it viewed the world to the Occidental mind.

29:27It's actually just the racism. We're actually just going to say racism. Our mind was better. Why is that racism? How is that? It's different. Our mind was different. You said better. Come on. Come on. Let's not play. Fundamentally different, I said. But different and then it leads to a great wealth. That means you're saying better. Yes. That's a racist idea. It's fundamentally different. We should get a program racist ideas. We can have a list of all the scientific and medicine discoveries that came out of Europe versus the rest of the world, if you'd like. We can take as long as you want. The founding of Science of Africa.

29:52Let me finish the points here. We also had in Britain, we had institutional stability, which you didn't have elsewhere, especially in Europe at this time as well. So we had political stability. We had the environment that was able to become conducive to the Industrial Revolution. We also had the financial markets, which were unparalleled elsewhere. Gold and silver, where'd they go from? We had the structures through the stock market where you could actually create these sorts of situations. And yes, of course, we had trade routes and we had access to raw materials, but you cannot deny... And slavery, just about?

30:23Well, if you look... The Atlantic... You've got to let them finish. 1798 to 1802 was the five-year period which saw the most slave ships, all right? If you look at 1792, for example, the peak year for slavery, there were 204 slave ships. British total vessels were 14 ,000. Slavery accounted for 1.5 % of the total British fleet, 3 % of tonnage. The contribution of, say, of slavery to the British economy was less than 5%. It made certain people very rich. That's why you get some great country houses. It made places like Bristol and Liverpool very rich. But the amount of money we're talking about is so small that it didn't have any consequential effect on the British nation as a whole.

31:08If you look at the sugar industry, which is claimed it was fundamental for the Industrial Revolution, that amounted to 2.5 % of net British national income. Coal, sheep farming, woolen industry, iron were all much higher than that. In 1770, which was the peak year for capital formation for sugar, it only accounted for 3 % of capital formation. If sugar was such a hot commodity, such a great investment, you would have had money pouring into it from all other industries. You didn't get that. In fact, if you look at flax and linen from Scotland and Ireland, they became much more of a revenue generator for the British economy, far higher than sugar.

31:44Nobody has said that without flax and linen, you wouldn't have had the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the contribution of sugar to the British economy was the same as barley and hops from which you make beer. And I don't recall anyone saying that beer was fundamental for the Industrial Revolution. Now, you mentioned Jamaica. Let me speak for a while. Let's stick on the topic that we're on. Again, this is what is a quote? This is a distortions of white historians. This can't accept. That's racist. Now that's racist. No, it's not. It's true. You're implying that a white historian is incapable of approaching the subject from an impartial perspective.

32:18Which means that you must have an equally biased perspective as a black historian. Look at the history of white historians, which you're parroting right now. And it will tell you the truth. It's not me looking at it and going, well, I remember I was in A-level history. I did this. I did the Industrial Revolution at A-level history. Got an A because I wrote a paper that said white people are great. That's basically the argument that Eunice made. and when I asked my teacher I said what about slavery which at the time I didn't really know much about I was like who knows what happened at the same time is it a coincidence his response was that's not in the textbook let's never talk about it again and this is the classic nonsense you get from historians like this how could you possibly say let me finish you talk about we had financial stability talk about the stock market gold and silver are the first two things which are so important to European development where did gold and silver come from I don't remember there being any gold and silver just lying around Europe.

33:05No historian worth their salt would say that how they tend to whitewash is they call it the Atlantic system. Going over to the West, finding the Americas, no historian worth their salt would not say that that is the fundamental turning point of Western development. It would be impossible not to, unless you're just going to close your eyes and go, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na. And say it's just things in Europe. Like I said, the key commodities, not just sugar. I didn't just list sugar. I told you gold, silver, tobacco, indigo, sugar, and cotton. And no, you can't forget cottons because it's American slave produced.

33:36Well, no, no, wait, it's important because it's not just Bristol and Liverpool, whole cities that really wouldn't exist. Manchester doesn't exist unless there's a canal that goes from Liverpool to Manchester and brings all this slave produced cotton. Birmingham, where I'm from, the guns for slavery, the chains for slavery, the whole economy is underpinned by this. You can't just take off the Atlantic system and say, it doesn't matter because there weren't that many slave ships. That's again, no good arguments. All we're getting is, well, let's discount, let's forget about it. And if what you're saying is true, why would the British government give the biggest bailout it's ever given?

34:11Because the only comparable bailout is to the banks. But that was apparently a loan, right? We got that back. There's no comparison to the 100 billion, 40 % of the governments. 40 % of the governments. There are so many areas of what you're saying. No, no, it's not. No, no, no, no. You asked the question, so now you let them answer. You said, why would they do that? Why would they do that? You know that's the truth. 40 % of government income to bail out slave owners if it wasn't a big deal. So, firstly, it wasn't the biggest loan ever given. There was much more money... No, it wasn't a loan at all.

34:37Hold on. You're right. It wasn't the biggest payment ever given. It was far more done in a single year of the Napoleonic War than it was done. No, no, payment to the industry. Same thing with the Crimean War. Payment to the industry. The other point to make is, of course, this is an issue of realpolitik, right? We don't live in an idealist world. We have to deal with reality on the ground. The House of Commons was not the full functioning democracy it is today. If there was any hope of securing freedom for the slaves, it had to be done through payment. There was no other means for the British state to get it through Parliament.

35:07Why not? If it was a moral issue... I'm not sure if you're aware of rotten boroughs and what Parliament... If it was a moral issue, it was a borough. Yes, sometimes you have abolition, but you still have, unfortunately, corruption in the 18th and 19th centuries. You still had a degree of corruption in the British Parliament. Still far less than anywhere else, but it was still enough there that you had to essentially ensure that people were paid for it. is not pleasant, but that was the only way. So what would you have rather done? No money would have been paid and the slaves would have remained in bondage for the foreseeable future until enough of the abolitionist movement was strong enough to actually convey everybody.

35:40That needed to be done. But your other arguments are so nonsensical. Let me address them. For example, by your argument, Portugal and Spain should have been the first countries to industrialise. Spain was getting all of the gold. Portugal had double the number of slaves of Great Britain. yet they became economic backwaters. Why was that? France had seven times the amount of coffee. It had 17 times the amount of sugar exported and of indigo exported. So indigo, cotton, sugar, far more than Britain got from Caribbean slaves. They weren't the first to industrialize. It was Britain that was the first to industrialize.

36:21And as a share of the Portuguese economy, The Brazilian Portuguese slave trade was far more lucrative for the Portuguese economy from the British economy. They didn't industrialize. Look at the United States of America. The Deep South, which were the slave-owning states, they didn't industrialize. It was the emancipated north of the country that was the first to industrialize. Now, look at all those examples. And don't get sidetracked here. We're talking about Spain, France, Portugal, all of this. How come those countries didn't become the first to industrialize? when I've clearly given you the real reasons of the Agrarian Revolution, the political stability, and the glorious institutions of Britain.

36:58So, for one, look, unlike you, I won't say that there aren't other things which are important. So I'm not saying there aren't other things. Like I said, I did A-Level History. I can give you a list of other things which are important. But it is impossible to discount how much that slavery meant. And the fact that Portugal and Spain don't, they do, A, they do develop, they just don't develop at the same pace. So if you're going to compare, it's interesting, now you don't want to compare, compare portugal's and france's economy to africa and the caribbean's economy you'd say there's a massive difference so yes i'm not saying it's just slavery is the only reason why britain became britain had the largest empire in the world britain had naval supremacy there's lots of reasons why britain developed which but the point is you can't discount slavery and the massive impact that it had and you also can't discount the wealth that very clearly is traceable and exists today from there and the poverty that is very clearly and traceable today and so reparation is simply saying look, there's a debt that was owed then, which you actually accept in your argument, and was never paid, hence it should be paid.

37:52Like I said, no good argument. But we're in agreement, because I'm not discounting the contribution of slavery. What I'm saying is it's not massive, as you're making out. You are saying that it was a massive involvement. You just said that whole cities exist because of slavery. It was a precondition. It was not a major contribution. It was, as I said, 3 % of the national income akin to barley and hops. That's my point. So it is not. And of course, and the people that I've seen you quote before, Beckles and so forth, they predicate the entire thing on the value of the slave trade and on the value of sugar as being essential.

38:26I'm saying those are Marxist interpretations and later historians, David Elton, Stanley Egerton have all disproved it. We're at the risk of losing the entire audience with our descent into academia. Interesting as it is from both of you. And I really appreciate it. But just coming back to sort of the more practical level, one question I always had, and this is a genuine question, right? So if I'm totally wrong, please correct me. But as far as I understand, it was so dangerous for European purchases of slaves in Africa to go ashore that almost the entirety of the slaves who were bought in Africa was sold by Africans.

39:05and that's always to those people who are aware of that which is actually not that many people that's always kind of to me well even if we were to pay like who who should be well shouldn't be the people who sold and captured those slaves be paying reparations do you see what i'm getting no i don't you don't get this is again a terrible terrible argument i'm just i'm just genuinely asking because there were jewish collaborators in the holocaust does that mean that we should blame jewish people like it's a silly argument no hold on hold on it's a hundred percent if We're going to say, no, we should go But that's not a fair comparison If the Holocaust had been conducted By the Jews That would be a very different conversation But slavery wasn't conducted by Africa They sold all the slaves They captured Well, no, A, again, there's a huge difference It's still slavery No, no, no, no, no, I think it would have definitions It's really, really important What Europe did was a new thing Yes, it was, Seattle slavery I'm sorry, in the Islamic slave trade They were involved in mining, in agriculture, in irrigation.

40:03They were on plantations in Africa. In the Islamic slave trade, they also had rights and could be free. You're lying to the public, though. They were on royal plantations. Bilal, the person who does the first call for prayer in the Koran, is an enslaved African. They had rights. You could become free. And in African slavery, in terms of what you're talking about, what it was actually just said was African slavery was much more like serfdom, where you were part of the family, you had freedom at a certain time. It's actually much more comparable to serfdom than it is to shatou slavery. Shadow slavery is dehumanizing.

40:31It is literally the taking away of every single right. And it's quite likely that the people who sold who didn't actually know what they were doing. Because remember, African slavery doesn't actually take place mostly on the continent. They go far away. You're ignoring all the slaves who died being kidnapped and transported to the coast. Again, the point here is, of course there is. There was huge rebellions. So yes, there were some Africans, 100%, who were complicit. There were whole kingdoms that essentially grew out of the idea of we walk trade. enslaved people. But this was because of the conditions that were imposed, right?

41:04I'm not saying that they're not blameless. You're not hearing me say they're blameless. But again, if you look at the calculations for reparations, they are based largely not on harm. They are based largely on paid labor and the wealth gap, which is there. And there's nobody in Africa who benefited from today from the wealth. So your argument is actually the reparations are owed because the slaves that were taken from Africa by European nations, they were used to produce things and therefore their descendants are owed effectively a chunk of that wealth that was produced using their labor. That's your argument.

41:36And plus, again, and I want to stress here, Africa overall, yes, you can find the minimum. I mean, in terms of the population of Africa, how many were involved in trading people? That is a minuscule number. That is a minuscule number. So the actual impact of slavery in Africa was to impoverish Africa. So I'm saying that the basis of reparations claims are one, the unpaid labor, which is very, very simple. There's hundreds to the labor, to the wealth that has accumulated and the damage that was done economically, which is still there. You can still see today, which is why you don't go to the Arab slave trade.

42:07You don't go to the few Africans you went. All right. So, Rafe, on that, is that not a fair point? If we could find some way, I know it's probably the practicalities of this are difficult, admittedly, but if we could find some way to go, well, look, your great, great, great grandfather wasn't slave, taken from Africa, used as a laborer. That labor produced X amount of wealth. and we are now, you know, we've developed this magical system to trace that back and to be able to give you X percent of his labor. Would that not be a good thing to do? No, not at all, because you're talking about sums that are far smaller than what you're discussing here.

42:44But also, of course, there is no, you know, it doesn't have such a rosy-colored picture of what it was like in Africa for slaves. You know, just in the kingdom of Dahomey, you had annual sacrifices sacrifices where you had up to 4 ,000 slaves murdered in human sacrifice rituals that were done there. What about Muslims and Gazeley? Not at all. You talk about the Islamics, no, but you're trying to paint this picture that somehow slavery, there are different gradations of slavery. In the Islamic slave trade, you had millions of young boys were captured. 60 % of those millions of young boys died because they were castrated brutally without anesthetic, of course, and died from that.

43:17This idea that somehow they were walking about drinking mint mint tulips or whatever. Nobody said that. Yes, you did, actually. I said it was different. I didn't say it was good. So let's be clear what I said. I said it was different. I hear that is what you said. But if you're going to create your formula, then who's going to pay for this? Out of a population of millions of people, there were only a few thousand slave owners. The majority of British people in this country descend from people who lived lives of abject poverty, akin to serfdom. Why should their tax money go to paying reparations?

43:46You know, over 16 % of this country is now foreign-born. Why should somebody who was born in Malaysia or Korea pay reparations? What about Jamaicans living here now? Why should they pay tax money to people in Trinidad for reparations? I mean, the whole idea is absurd. As I say, you can't have intergenerational trauma for eight generations. It's simply absurd. You need to take responsibility and, of course, look to the great success stories of Africa in the past. Look, for example, there are reasons for Africa's poverty right now. And it's corruption. It's a failure to manage the economy well. There are only two countries in Africa which are success stories that rank in the top tier of the Human Development Index.

44:25That's Mauritius and the Seychelles. Why is that? Because they've got good government, good democracy. They have institutions that are respected and well supported. And they've allowed immigration into the country. So there are lots of Indians in the economy who are helping the economy. Contrast that to what happened to South Africa. Contrast that to what happened with Zimbabwe. So what happened is in Africa? With the white minority rules in Africa? With Zimbabwe. Look at the economy. as soon as you turp out one group of... Oh, so we need non-black people in Africa as a solution? Like, the actual racist ideas coming out of your head, I'm surprised.

44:57Are you denying that Zimbabwe's GDP has not fought? What happened to Uganda after the Asians were kicked out? What happened to Uganda before? What happened to South Africa in recent years? What's happened to Zimbabwe? Hey, again, let's not lie. South Africa is not kicking people out. That's not what's happening at all. because Africa is actually still under the control of most of the same Afrikaners. Let's not lie. The corruption. I'm talking about the corruption, but where does the corruption come from? I'm sorry. Let's go into the Congo. And you talk about Africa. For example, the life expectancy in Africa, you said it is 60.

45:30It doubled because of the arrival of the Europeans in the country. Life expectancy for thousands of years had been 24 to 35 up to the 1850s, 1860s. It was the same in 1850 as in 1550 as in 1450. Since Europeans arrived, because of medicine, vaccinations, antibiotics, clean water, sanitation, life expectancy doubled. And the Caribbean was a beneficiary of far more of that. Life expectancy in the Caribbean is up to 15 years longer than in West Africa. The GDP is over 10 times higher. That's because of the inheritance that they got from the British Empire. I mean, can I just be really, really clear on this?

46:09I think one of the things which gets lost also with reparation for slavery campaigns is the good ones are not just about slavery. It actually says, so America, for example, has a whole reparation campaign which recognizes slavery, recognizes Jim Crow, recognizes everything else. As I said, the knife wasn't pulled out. So when you're looking at someone like Africa, slavery happens, then colonialism happens. So Africa is literally underdeveloped by Europe. So anything you say about whether the Latin religion was bad, it was under development. Can I just get under development before? Hold on, hold on, hold on.

46:37No, no, but this is the thing. I want to let you talk for a long time. There's just a definition I'd love to get from you because it's a word we hear a lot now, colonialism. What does that mean? What is colonialism? So colonialism is when one country or entity controls another one for its own benefit. And so Jamaica is a colony of Britain from, what, 1655. Everything that happens in Jamaica is, you could still argue today because we now have neo-colonialism, But colonialism, everything happens in Jamaica, everything happens in Nigeria when it's colonised. It's to the benefit of Britain. And so therefore, places are underdeveloped.

47:09So the truth is, we have no idea what would happen if Europe hadn't come into Africa, did the slave trade, the colonialism. We have no idea what would happen. Is that not a fair point? No. We do. You don't know how. We do. We have Ethiopia and we have Liberia. Ethiopia and Liberia were never colonised. They were independent. Liberia was made up by America. They were independent nations. and I'm sorry, but Ethiopia and Liberia still remain in the lowest tier of developed countries in Africa. It's my mistake. I shouldn't have brought Rafe in. I apologise. You carry on. Liberia is actually made up by America.

47:38So let's not pretend that Liberia has this long history. Ethiopia is the perfect example of being a country surrounded by other colonial countries. So Ethiopia may well have been independent, but a country can't by itself develop. If it's surrounded by, it's basically a colony. And actually Ethiopia is one of the in terms of what we call neocolonialism there, which is after formal colonialism ends, yes you have governments but they are puppet governments, in fact many times installed by the West and that's where the corruption actually comes from, not us, from puppet governments and you cannot, I mean that would be just a lie to pretend that's not the case.

48:09For example in the Congo Joseph Mobutu is literally installed by the CIA in puppets and then literally destroys the country and it comes to England, comes to America flies around in private jets and steals billions upon billions upon billions with the consent of both the USA and the United Kingdom in Europe etc. So the Neocolonians when we have that it continues so I'd argue actually Ethiopia is one of the worst countries for neocolonialism because it was surrounded wherever else so the point is don't just look at slavery as separate look at that history and tell me anywhere on this line from slavery to colonialism to neocolonialism or racism where has this debt that you say and acknowledge should have been paid where has it been paid and not only has it not been paid more things have been piled onto it third world debt for example piled onto it all of these things piled onto it so we actually have a position where it's far worse than just slavery it's slavery colonialism and where we are today because it just piles up piles up piles up piles up and to pretend that it doesn't that's what i call psychosis the psychosis of whiteness there's this rosy-eyed view of the world where you can ignore what's happened historically ignore the implications which are very clear today and i've got a question for rave so i'm my argument is very clear white supremacy is what defines the global economy has done since this is a very clear argument if you look at a map of global inequality today, GDP per capita, it will show you that the poorest part of the world is where black people live, so-called sub-Saharan Africa, the richest part of the world is where white people live, the West, and there's a hierarchy in between.

49:33So we literally have an economy in the mould of white supremacy, which is how I understand the world. Tell me how that can be true. Before you do, can I just jump in? Please don't, because I like to move. Can I just explore this thing? Because you say the psychosis of white... And look, I think you've made some interesting points about slavery and what's owed. And I actually said to you before we started that I think there's some really strong arguments on that point that I agree with to some extent. When you start talking about whiteness, are you not including a hell of a lot of people who really had nothing to do with any of this?

50:08Like my ancestors are Russian. That's where I'm from. I happen to live in this country. But when you say psychosis of whiteness, now I'm part of this somehow. Do you see what I'm saying? I want to say... Is it not a little bit... Is it a little bit too broad? No, no, no. If you're someone who values free inquiry and independent thinking, which let's be honest is why you're probably watching trigonometry, then our sponsor, Venice AI, is the tool for you. Here's a hot take. AI is exploding right now. But seriously, most of the tools out there are just clones with slightly different skins. Venice AI is different.

50:42It offers uncensored AI chat, images, and coding. Why should a team of programmers at these leading AI apps be the ones who get to decide what is and isn't okay for you to think? Whether you're researching topics that make other platforms nervous, or you're just sick of being told what you can and can't ask, Venice gives you the freedom to explore without limits. No political filtering, no condescending footnotes, just powerful AI, fast. We've tried it ourselves, and if you're someone who thinks about these things, you'll notice the difference immediately. If you want to use AI without fear of handing over your thoughts, ideas, or personal information to a corporation or the government, you can get 20 % off a pro plan using our link, venice.ai slash trigonometry.

51:24You'll find the link in the description of this episode or type it in venice.ai slash trigonometry and see what you've been missing. And now, back to the show. Meet Timothy. Because this is radio, you can't see Timothy. You can't see that Timothy has eczema. And you can't see that he's sliding down a slip and slide with his big brother. You see, Timothy's on Dupixent, Dupilumab. It helps control his moderate to severe eczema when prescription topical therapies aren't enough. And because this is radio, you can't see Timothy's clearer skin or how he's itching less. But kids as young as six months can see for themselves how Dupixent helps heal their skin from within and get ahead of their eczema.

52:07And it's not a cream, steroid, or immunosuppressant. Severe allergic reactions, including skin reactions, can occur. Get help right away for face, mouth, tongue, or throat swelling, wheezing, or trouble breathing. Tell your doctor right away of new or worsening eye problems like eye pain or vision changes, skin symptoms, joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. Don't change or stop other treatments without talking to your doctor. Dupixent helps your child feel the heal. Ask your child's eczema specialist. Visit dupixent.com or call 1-844-DUPIXENT. Whiteness is about idea, not people So it's not really about people I didn't say psychosis of white people I said whiteness Whiteness is a way of viewing the world Which is completely irrational, deluded and distorted And leads to arguments on the other side of the table Which all black people, Asian people Are just as likely to engage in as anybody else It's not about you individually Wait, so whiteness has nothing to do with skin colour?

52:58Well, it's whiteness comes from a system of white supremacy As I said, the world today Can you explain why the poorest part of the world is black and the richest part of the world is white and there's a hierarchy in between? Isn't a bad race? Isn't a bad colonialism? Maybe right, Fonsai. The poorest part of the world was African long before Europeans arrived. How do you explain that? Africa was ahead of Europe before. Africa was ahead of Europe before. Look, you had in the Middle Ages, you had the Mali Empire and Timbuktu and all of that. Ahead of Europe. Yeah, but they didn't develop beyond that.

53:26Why is that? Why was sub-Saharan... Because slavery happened. No, I'm sorry, for heaven's sake. We're talking about West African slavery. That didn't go into Central Africa. Let him answer now. Can we answer with the truth? I'm sorry. This is the key point, right? Africa is thousands of years old. Europeans didn't arrive there to settle and colonize until the scramble for Africa was when it really took place in 1885. As late as 1841, you had a few trading outposts on the coast. Yes, there was a slave trade, but we're talking about when Europeans went inland because people inland in Africa didn't have any knowledge or experience of what was happening on the coast of the slave markets.

54:07Africa is huge. They got their slaves from West Africa. They weren't getting their slaves from Central Africa. Congo, where's Congo? I'm talking about the 1600s. Where's Congo? Congo, come on. I am giving you plenty of time. I know you're both passionate and I love it and it's great. Just Ray, for one sake. I'm glad we're having this debate. I think it's great. I wanted to be informative for the audience as well. So it's better if you don't talk over each other. that you will get all the time you need both of you, all right? In 1871, only 10 % of Europe, of Africa, had been colonized. So why in 1871?

54:39Africa had had thousands of years. Why was there no equivalent of the cities of India? This is a land mass larger than Europe, larger than India and China combined. Why wasn't there the economic development? Why was life expectancy still as it was? Why didn't you have any of the scientific advancement elsewhere? Africa had been left to its own devices. It didn't come up with that. the huge leap forwards for Africa in terms of life expectancy, in terms of the economy, in terms of science and medicine, happened when the Europeans were there. And the Europeans were not there for very long. I think people often think that this is centuries of involvement in Africa.

55:10We're talking about a period of around 150 years ago was when colonization started. And for most countries, colonization was less than a century. You know, it was from the 1880s up to the 1950s or 1970s, such a short period of time. But during that period, what growth and development happened in Africa, for example. Now, this is really going to annoy Kehinde, but nothing has done more to lift the world out of poverty than capitalism and colonialism. Those have been the two greatest forces for life expectancy, for living standards. As Steven Pinker from Harvard University has said, that life in pre-state societies was incalculably more brutal and harsh than life today.

55:50I mean, you know, we're talking about cannibalism, awful rituals taking place, everything. And you needed structured societies to achieve that. That's been achieved. If you look at the successful states that achieved that, they were ones that usually had a British imperial heritage. So wherever you go in the world, of all the empires, those that had a British imperial heritage came out the best of the whole situation. And you talk about Jamaica, for example, Jamaicans disagree with you. And, you know, a few years ago, there was a poll of Jamaicans. 60 % of Jamaicans said that they wished the British had never left.

56:18They said British rule was far better. It was far less corrupt. Things worked better. and they would prefer the British to be in power. And if you look and you were asking about, you said I can't say any examples. If you look at the independent countries in the Caribbean, yes, a lot of them aren't doing very well economically. The countries in the Caribbean that are doing very well are those which are dependencies of France, of Britain and of the United States. Puerto Rico, Guadalupe, Martinique, around the same size as Barbados, much more profitable. Why? Because they haven't been victims of the corruption and of the incompetent leadership, the substandard and unserious politicians that you have there who are often beating the drum and looking for handouts rather than dealing with the country's problems as they should be dealt with.

57:03You've got all the time you want. I literally just explained this. This is why to buy something like psychotics, because you give the argument and it's not the way. Come on, you've got to stop throwing insults and just make the argument. I want to be clear. It's not an insult. It's not an insult. I tell you, our audience is very nuanced and they're open to be persuaded, but you've got to make the argument. But I want to stress, this is part of the argument, because part of what I'm trying to tell you is it doesn't matter what we say and we talk about debate and you want to come to it. It's not going to happen, right?

57:29Because we're just we're talking. You two are never going to agree. That's why you're here. But but you. But hold on. Hold on. You're coming at this from two very different perspectives. But the reason I brought you together is not because I thought you and Rafe would sit down around the table and eventually agree. That's never going to happen. The reason I brought you together is there's a million and a half people watching potentially. right and a lot of them haven't made their mind up about this issue at all they don't know as i don't know what they think so you have an opportunity to persuade them so the reason i say the word insult maybe you don't mean it that way but if you say to the person watching this well you've got psychosis it's not it's not that persuasive do you know what i mean i'm just making it plain like i don't know how else to tell you but to make it plain persuade me like explain it to me.

58:14Look, as I said, the idea that, so, Rafe starts up with this point, which I already mentioned, right? Colonialism. The reason that Europe doesn't colonise Africa is it can't. Not because they don't want to. It's not possible. It doesn't have the capability. But his argument is Africa was poor before the Europeans got there. And this is where it's not, simply not true. When Europe comes, when Europe comes to Africa, Africa is ahead. There are more books in Timbuktu, one library in Timbuktu, than there are in the whole of Europe. This is one of the biggest lies in history. Africa is not behind. Europe can't actually colonize Africa because it doesn't have the capability to do it.

58:47It's not possible. Is that just one example? Or are you saying the whole continent is more developed? I mean, not every part of the continent. But if you're going to say Africa as a whole is more developed. We're quite ignorant about African history, I would say. So can you tell us more about that? Generally, you're talking about the Mali Empire. Technologically, in terms of reading, it's just a head. Technologically? Technologically. Like what technologies? So the Moors go into Europe from North Africa and bring in things like, bring in many things, toilet paper, bring in things like hygiene, bring in things like dinner plates.

59:19You can talk, and you know this is true, I'm not making this up. There's a whole influence on European culture from the Moors. When the Moors are defeated in 1491, 1492, that opens up Europe and coming to Africa. But Africa as a whole, they're not able to colonize. Are the Moors, I'm not a historian, so I don't know. So again, educate me. Are the Moors North Africans or are they coming from sub-Saharan Africa? This is North Africa, which is the North African... North African. You also have Mali. You mentioned the Empire of Mali. You have Zimbabwe has development. Overall, Africa is not behind.

59:50The Moors are part of the Islamic world, right? They're the North Africans part. They also include Africa as well, right? We agree on this? It's not just Africa. It's not just Africa. It's not just Africa. Africa's too big. It's why I'm asking. We're talking about the slave trade. So I think what people hear, or at least what I hear, I may be wrong, when you say Africa was more advanced, I'm trying to think which part... I'm not just talking about the Moors. The Moors are one part. Okay. So let's set the Moors aside. Mali is not the Moors. Mali, an empire. Zimbabwe, the Yoruba. There's many. You can go through it.

1:00:18The continent is not like some backwards. We're not doing anything on the continent. So when you say they're more advanced, you talked about, you know, the Moors brought certain things, which, by the way, like a lot of people don't know, I actually studied Islamic history at university, so I know a lot of the things that they brought and preserved sometimes from the ancient world, et cetera. But in terms of the sub-Saharan Africa, What would you say were their key scientific developments and other things that we would say, well, that was more advanced than the Europeans at that point? Well, it's actually interesting that when there's actually reports that when Columbus was sailing to America, there were Africans sailing back.

1:00:52Not Moors, West Africans. There's actually a lot of evidence that West Africans made it to America long before, a thousand years before. The Olmec heads, there was a person who did research, I can't remember her name. New Age of Empires, a book where I did the research on this. but she actually found that there were drugs in some of the West African, sorry, there were drugs in the Latin American tombs which came from West Africa, a thousand years ago. So they had sailing technology. They could sail, they had the wheel, there was technology, there was iron, etc. Remember, who are the dark ages in Europe?

1:01:24Europe isn't particularly advanced at all at this point. So the reason, if Rafe is correct, Europe goes to Africa really 1492, 15th century, 16th century Europe. the reason they're not colonizing isn't because they don't want to colonize because they can't, you mentioned it earlier why was it that there was Africans who did the actual capture because Europeans couldn't get in it was disease it wasn't just disease, it was revolt it was rebellion so they had this disease does not explain why, you have these massive castles where heavily fortified and even like Almeida Castle in Ghana they even abandoned those and have to go, at some point, they start just having boats where the boats are offshore because there's so much resistance, they just start putting people on the boats.

1:02:07So there's a reason why Europe was in Christ. It's not because they're one to you. They didn't need to. The slave markets were there on the coast. I'm not making this up. New Age of Empire. So let me explain. So, slavery, once Europeans started to come into a slave, and a big part of this whole thing is work. When we say Africans, that is a European idea at the time. At the time, Africans did not see themselves as Africans. That was not the case. There were different ethnicities, and what Europe did very well was they played off these different ethnicities against each other. So it wasn't the case that the Yoruba were selling the Yoruba.

1:02:36The Yoruba might have a war with the Igbo, and then when they captured the Igbo, they'd sell them. So the idea that Africans were selling off Africans, again, is not really true. This is different groups. Hold on, that's one group of Africans selling another group of Africans. What we now think of Africans, and they now think of Africans, certainly, by the time, if there was a we are all African identity, slavery probably doesn't happen. Because, again, Europe's not powerful enough. So what happens is, slavery starts It becomes lucrative. It slowly starts to become the dominant. It is the dominant force on the African continent.

1:03:03And yes, the enslaved are taken from the interior. There are marches. Congo is one of the main places where enslaved go to Brazil. That's firmly in the middle. So the whole continent starts to change, which is why you have the rise of the Ashanti, the Dahomey who you mentioned. The groups that say, you know, we will do the trading on behalf of, we'll work. And they have the English flag, some of these. You're saying demand creates supply. Yes. Because it was lucrative, right? And so there were people who took advantage. and if you look at all of the ethnic groups that become dominant, those are the ones that are enslaving.

1:03:34And they're doing it oftentimes with English flag, literally waving English flag enslaving people. So there's a whole period from, let's say 1500, up to colonization, where Africa's being drained of resources, slavery's destroying things, people are moving away from, they're trying to get away from the coast. The whole economy gets completely differently shaped. So we have no idea what happens because slavery becomes a dominant thing on the continent, which is why there's no development. Slavery literally stops African development to the point at which then in the 19th century, places like Nigeria are able to, they can be colonized.

1:04:03And again, just the idea that places with British heritage are the ones who do the best. Nigeria is essentially a failed state. Explain that. Because Nigeria had British, the British, British, British, it's still very British in the education system and it's one of the, it's essentially a failed state today. So it's really not the case that having British heritage makes it work. Most regions of the world, places with the British heritage are better. South Africa was the golden jewel in Africa. Kenya was the great... Kenya? I know. It was deeply poor. I'm sorry, I'm talking about when independence came, not talking about what's happened.

1:04:32You can't blame us now for the bad corruption and bad government of those places. That's not true. But if you compare African states that were British to those that were French or elsewhere... But let's get back to your point. Look, I've already said, and you said that, the Mali Empire, the Songhai Empire were great, but don't make it out as if, you know, there was a great Wakanda in Africa at this time. I'm sorry. These are few and far between places. The history of... More developed than Europe. And the reason for their decline was because of internal issues that they had. They were warring with each other.

1:04:58They were incompetently led. That's why you had the collapse of Timbuktu and of the Mali Empire, for example. And why was it? I mean, you know, the fact is Africa was not developed. Why did Africa not have something equivalent to the Enlightenment that we saw and to the Reformation that we saw in the 13th to the 17th century in Italy and Europe, the great cultural awakening of the Reformation? Why didn't they have an equivalent to the Gupta Empire in India? We saw a great flourishing of arts and culture and science. Why was there no equivalent to the Tang Dynasty in China, the great period there?

1:05:31This was a time when there was no European entry into Africa. This was a time when Africa was on its own, able to do whatever it wanted to. It had the opportunity to develop its own culture. 80 % of African languages don't have a written alphabet. bet. It's very difficult, therefore, to create a civilized society when you don't have those necessary precursors for civilizations. Those are the things, of course, which you don't want to address. And, you know, it's very easy to just suggest that Africa was somehow more developed. I'm sorry. The point was, you know, Asia,

1:06:06India, China, the Middle East were much more advanced than Europe in the Dark Ages and elsewhere. Absolutely. What happened, the great genius of the West is what happened from the 1600s onwards when we adopted the scientific method. And when, as I said, the Western mind fundamentally views the world differently. For example, outside of the West, they're much better at facial recognition because they use both hemispheres of the brain. The Western mind only uses the right hemisphere for facial recognition. There are very fundamentally different ways in which these things happen. Eugenics, non-student.

1:06:36It's not eugenics because you now find it in places like China. Listen to what you're saying, not the West. Let's place West with white, because that's what you actually mean. Let's be real. No, I don't. Why do you function differently? Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies. These were born in Europe, but they've now been processed in China, in Japan, in other industrialized parts of the world. The origin of it was white. I'm not correct. Oh, you're very happy to celebrate the African origins of things. Somehow Europe can't celebrate or acknowledge any of its own achievements and accomplishments.

1:07:05You can celebrate the achievements, but don't pretend the Western mind is different, the white mind is different. That's a clearly racist idea. You clearly haven't done any research. There's huge amounts of psychological evidence. There's lots of eugenic evidence that tells you this. No, hold on. There's nothing to do with eugenics. There are different groups of white people, right? The only reason I'm jumping in is because you're talking about something that I personally can weigh in on. So I would say, having come from Eastern Europe, there's a massive difference between the way Eastern Europeans think and the way Western Europeans think or the way Americans think.

1:07:39In fact, it's actually, as I've now discovered, I used to think like Americans and British people basically the same, speak the same language. As you've just come back from America, you know that's not true, right? Like they think about things very differently. So if cultures can be different within, you know, you're focused on ethnicity. Okay, let's just take that. white people can have different cultures, wouldn't it be therefore very logical to say people in Western Europe will have a different way of thinking about things than people in another continent, whether that's in China or in Africa?

1:08:08Isn't that a fair point? Why do you say that's eugenics? It seems excessive to me. You can certainly make the case that there's different cultural outlooks. Of course, our African beliefs tend to have completely different views about death, etc. But that is a different state. The Western mind is different. Our minds are the same. Our cultures may be different, but our minds are not different. And actually, I really want to stress this. They are fundamental. That is Western exceptionalism. The whole thing of eugenics, craniometry, there's a different kind of side you can measure the head. You can say which is right brain.

1:08:34He didn't say right. He said mind. This is not biological. So why is it? So Westernness, for example. Please explain why you're saying, this is your, not me, the Western mind has a different hemisphere when white. Let him explain. Why is that okay? Let him explain. Spatial awareness, visual reasoning, these are all noticeable differences. So, for example, right corners, we are less good at looking at round corners than Africans because they don't have the right angle. So if you look in places now that were built, when you grow up in houses which are square, the eye naturally sees right angles when they see a flat surface.

1:09:10They don't see that. That's because of how we developed and grew up. This is about cultural anthropology. It's not about biology. This is about the situation and the dynamics. I'm sorry. We're dressing up eugenics. Let me answer it. And as the West developed and as you had colonialism and you exported the Western concepts around the world, you saw the development of these same attributes elsewhere, which is why, of course, you had it in Japan and China. There are very few differences now with the originally European mind, which is why it's called the Western mind. This is not something that's controversial.

1:09:41This is accepted by behavioural psychologists and cultural psychologists and anthropologists. It's very well known. This is the science. I have a degree in psychology, so I can tell you they did not genuinely accept it. Actually, it is. There's a lot of evidence. But the point is, it was that moment, and this all goes back to the church's ban on cousin marriage a thousand years ago. This is where it all develops from. The Catholic Church, it was then called the Western Church, banned marriage between certain degrees of consanguinity. That got rid of the kinship clans, which were prevalent all around the world.

1:10:10To this day, the majority of cultures in the world have large kinship-based families with about 40, 50 members. Whether you're a first, second, third, fourth cousin, you're treated equally as brothers and sisters. That was done away within Europe. And so suddenly you had the birth of the nuclear family. And still, nuclear families are a small minority of global families. And what you had then was you had family units had to rely on other people for support. You got the birth of social trust. Social trust did not exist outside of the West at this time to anywhere near the same degree. When you had social trust, of course, you then were able to enter into contracts.

1:10:45And you began to have rival organizations to families developing. You had charter towns, towns that you would sign an oath to help develop. You had universities. You had guilds. You had confraternities. These were uniquely European things that began to develop in the last thousand years. And then when you had these independent organizations, you then began to have cross-pollination of ideas. They would talk and discuss. You'd have the birth of competition. And that's what led to innovation. And social trust and competition are fundamental to innovation. It's at this point that you see the development of a very different worldview, a very different outlook.

1:11:20And you can see it in all sorts of ways. So, for example, if you look at ways that we identify ourselves for Western people, and that includes now modern places in Asia, if I said, Constantine, who are you? You'd say I'm a very, very handsome stand-up comedian. You're trying to get on my side. I've got snazzy jackets and I collect milk bottle tops or whatever, right? But if you were to ask somebody in a tribe in rural Africa, they would say, well, I'm X, I'm the son of Y, I'm the brother of so-and-so, I'm the father of so-and-so. It's family and kinship that defines who you are, as opposed to what happens in the West.

1:11:58Because in the West, you had the birth of individualism. And that was the key difference. The notion of the individual is a Western, primarily anglospheric concept, which also Protestant helped to create. And it was that notion of the individual and self-improvement and the reliance on other people. that you had innovation in individualism and competition. That led to the uniqueness of the Western mind, which wasn't replicated anywhere else till you had an exporting of colonialism. See, the reason I'm getting frustrated, I don't even know. Now I'm just starting to be like, this is actually dangerous.

1:12:29These are a set of dangerous ideas. So if you think about what justified slavery in the first place, first you had, there was a religious justification. It was very much the Pope. If you're not Christian, if you're a heathen, you can do what you like, right? After that, it becomes the, if you like, the Enlightenment definition, the scientific definition. actually we're just not human beings right we're just actually like more like i'm more like an ape and i'm a human therefore you can do xyz again i would point out this enlightenment we're so proud of it was actually brought in the idea that i'm not a human being so maybe there's some very bad ideas in the enlightenment anyway it becomes that scientific justification that's what you get phrenology from eugenics which i'm saying why this is eugenic idea what happens after the second world war is eugenics becomes a bad thing we can't do eugenics no more what do we do we do cultural racism so you're expanding the world because you're saying that the west essentially has a better culture and Africa has a backwards culture and this is why Africa's poor that is a clear, that is a you go from church, you go church science, culture, it's the same line, so when I'm saying it's eugenics it's eugenics dressed up in something else which you can do with some fancy tests and I promise you, these things are not widely accepted in psychology, I have a degree in psychology I know it's literature, it's deeply controversial and I would ask your audience to think which, look this is It's a comforting idea to think that the poverty that we have, the world that kills a child every 10 seconds because they haven't got access to food and water, most of those children, not only all of those children are black and brown.

1:13:50Racial capitalism. It's comforting to think it's because we have this great culture, isn't it wonderful, et cetera, et cetera. But I'm giving you the actual alternative reality to this. There is a reason why Africa's development stops when slavery starts. Because slavery stops development. There is a reason why under colonialism, where the whole economy is dictated to and to draw out resources. so when African countries get independence the book I'd recommend everybody read is Africa Mushy Knight by Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of Ghana Ghana's actually one of the first countries in 1960 to get independence says now I run this country but there's no hospitals, there's no schools, there's no roads there's no factories, in fact the whole of this economy is built, are taking all of our resources and processing them in Europe and selling them back to us, that is still the case in somewhere like Ghana where chocolate companies take the resources produce it outside etc etc so when you have this independence happens their countries, they can't.

1:14:41How could a country that has no hospitals, no roads, no factories ever succeed? It can't. So what does it do? It falls into poverty, gets these loans, has more poverty, etc, etc. On top of that, one of the key features of neocolonialism is to install public governments, places like Congo, even in Nigeria, even in Nkrumah is arrested, etc. And so when you're looking at African countries can't succeed, of course they couldn't succeed. There's no possible way that they could have succeeded, which is why they're still poor today. And again, reparations is not just about slavery, it's about that whole history.

1:15:08So I'm telling you, The reason that you have this inequality today is very clearly, largely down to Europe exploiting, the West exploiting the underdeveloped world and continuing to do so. And you have a fairytale and frankly racist idea over there. Pause both of you. Is it possible that there's some truth in what you're both saying? Because I think it's undeniable that Western slavery and colonialism would have had a negative impact on Africa. But that doesn't mean that the cultures weren't necessarily the same. So could it be that you're both right? I mean, Ray, surely you wouldn't deny that colonialism and slavery was bad for Africa, would you?

1:15:47Well, for people alive at the time, it was bad. Absolutely. That's my point. Slavery and colonialism were horrendous for people at the time. But now, generation on, I'm sorry, the benefits of colonialism have helped to lift the world out of poverty, have increased life, have doubled life expectancy. Same thing in Australia. Life expectancy of aborigines was 40 years for thousands of years. Now it's almost doubled, right? So those are the advantages. So yes, slavery was horrendous for slaves. But for the descendants of slaves today living in Britain and the Caribbean, slavery, they're not victims of slavery.

1:16:20They've actually benefited from the terrible hardship that their ancestors went through. But do you not think being occupied, having a foreign government that sought to use your country exclusively for its own benefit, which it did? I'm not saying they didn't do certain things. I'm sure they brought schools in and whatever. But nonetheless, they did that so they had a more educated population to do the things that they needed done, right? Don't you think that, you know, 100 years of that would leave a legacy that was detrimental? Detriment in what way? Yes, look, the point was that pre-state societies were far more brutal.

1:16:56So, yes, I'm not saying that these were wonderful places necessary to live. But, you know, racism was abhorrent at that time. Look, Britain is now the world's third least racist country. But back in the 19th century, of course, everyone did believe in racial hierarchies. Britain was very racist in the start of the 20th century as well. No one is denying that. No one is denying the atrocities. My father was born in Kenya, along with all his family. What happened to the Mauma was terrible and everything else, and the Kikuyu and so forth. But the point was, terrible compared to what? The conditions that were there before, when you had terrible violence, of course, between rival tribes.

1:17:30You had warfare, you had malnutrition, you had poor water, you had disease. People's life expectancies were so short. You compare that to what happened afterwards, clearly a huge improvement with the benefit of industrialization and development. And, of course, once independence came, they were given an inheritance. They had the necessary conditions to thrive. I mean, it's not true. In the 1950s and 60s was, for example, in the Caribbean, that was a key era for the development of the Caribbean. In Barbados, there's only one main hospital. That was built by the British. One main university. That was built by the British.

1:18:06Things haven't developed beyond that in Barbados because, of course, there's been economic mismanagement and corruption. And as I've said to you before, the countries in the Caribbean that are still crown dependencies are the ones that are thriving. 60 % of Jamaicans understand that, and they would prefer Britain never to have left. Come on, can I answer that? Specifically, let me answer that specifically. As I said, this is what we call neocolonism. so when Jamaica becomes independent and actually the reason Jamaica becomes independent is to stop Jamaicans migrating to Britain that is why they made Jamaica independent not because of some great moral thing they want to stop people coming and it largely works but after Jamaica becomes independent this is the problem with independence, it's independence in theory but the economics of Jamaica stay the same so the same people who owned everything in Jamaica still own it now so the money is still being taken out, still being withdrawn which is why obviously it can't succeed Jamaica's economy is really collapsing and doesn't really show any signs of getting much better and so yes if you ask your average jamaican was it better under the british they might go yeah it was it was a bit better but that's because they're presented with this neoclonism which is even worse but the cause of it is still the same you still have to address it so for example no in jamaica we're parents and i know jamaica world i'm from jamaica tourism is the main industry right 70 % of the money from tourism goes straight out there's a the north shore where my family live in jamaica most of it literally there's like no public beaches or like a little slither of public beaches because most of it's owned by foreign companies.

1:19:26So the thing that's supposed to help us doesn't help us. This drains the money straight out. That's the problem with something like Jamaica. It's not actually independent. It's theoretically independent, but economically, Jamaica's economy is still completely being rinsed by the West. And now it's not just actually Europe, so China, India's getting involved, et cetera, et cetera. So Jamaica's economy can't work. And so the people there might say, oh, yeah, we want it. It was better then. That's not proof. You're acting as if the Jamaican government has no agency in any of this. It's terrible. It's the same thing.

1:19:53But this is the problem here that you have. That's why people preferred things when they were run by the British. In Barbados, the Auditor General in Barbados has said that he can't actually get proper accounts for state-owned industries and enterprises. Can you imagine that? The Auditor General cannot get accounts on state industries in Barbados. That's the level of corruption and dysfunction that is created by having people in power who simply don't deserve to be there. And you can't keep blaming everything on what happened post-independence. It's now been 50, 60, 70 years of independence. That's long enough to sort your own house out.

1:20:27Because the problem that you stated, what was one of the key things that Britain needed was financial stability. And the former colonies simply don't have it because they can't have it. Because no, Britain did not leave the colonies in a state where they could govern. They did not. They did not. That's effectually untrue. They left the colonies in states with roads that went to the airport, with maybe one hospital, maybe a couple of schools. They did not leave them in places where they could succeed, which is why most of the former colonies, almost all of them, fall into what we call third world debt, IMF, etc., etc., which is just a new form of colonialism.

1:20:55That's the truth. That's fundamentally the truth. No country did more to prepare its colonies for independence than Britain did. That is deeply odd. And up to 2009, you had Britain investment. The civil service was present, military structures, parliament, courts, judiciary, rule of law. I'm talking about roads, infrastructure, hospitals. No, they didn't. Because the evidence is clear on this. Of course, you look at the number of schools, even after emancipation. So after slavery was abolished in 1833, enforced in 1844, for the next 10 years, from 1835 to 1844, with no obligation, Britain gave grants to the Caribbean for schools, for churches, and for hospitals and so forth, some equivalent to a billion pounds today, right?

1:21:40Sorry, can we say no obligation? This is, again, a massive problem we think about Britain. Jamaica was a colony of Britain. It had an obligation. When my dad came in 1960 to here, he came with a passport. Wait a second. No, no. They came with a passport that said Jamaica. It had every obligation because it owned the place. Yeah, it did. I think you've got your wise process. I think what Rafe is saying is the money was given and there was no requirement to repay or to do anything. No, no. My point is it was part of the nation, so of course it was. There's no difference between Britain funding education in Jamaica and Britain funding education in Birmingham.

1:22:13And the Caribbean still benefits because it's a member of the Commonwealth. We should be grateful for it. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK giving an inordinate amount of its foreign aid to former British colonies in the Commonwealth, right? So, you know, as I said, 2 billion up to 2009. Currently it's 430 million pounds of British money is earmarked for development there. And that's because, of course, of the ties. All right, all right, all right. We're back in nerd territory. I want to wrap it up a little bit. But can I ask you one thing before we wrap up? Because you talked a lot about this kind of psychology of whiteness and whatever.

1:22:44Do you think there was something very particular about Western Europeans that made them do the slave trade, that made them behave in the ways that they did? That's a good question. I mean, talk about different minds, yeah. Maybe that's why. Do you have a theory? I would not say different minds. No, but I'm asking you, why do you think it happened that way? because I guess the argument that I'm thinking about is, I mean, I personally have to say, I don't know enough about it to really make a judgment, but I'm surprised to hear you say Africa was more developed. I'd always assumed that the reason the Europeans did what they did probably wasn't because they had some different special mind in that way, but actually it was because they just had the technology, they were more powerful, they were wealthier, so they could do this in a way that actually everyone would have done if they were in a position to.

1:23:36So I guess what I'm getting at is, would Africans have colonized Western Europe if the shoe was on the other foot? Or do you think there's something special about white Europeans that made them behave in that way? I'm so tempted to give a different answer to this question, but I'm really not. I'm going to play nice. I think that when you look at it, this is why the West is... When I say the West, when I say the West, it really doesn't mean going to the West, Europe going to the West and finding the Americans. The Americas are such an... It unlocks so many things. It's not a coincidence that America is the richest part of the world.

1:24:08It's like that's the key that unlocks everything else. And I think you have to be honest and say, well, who's the ambassador to the first, the guy, Columbus, Christopher Columbus, who goes over there is one of the most violent, insidious people in the history of human life, right? Who from, and this is midpoint estimates, and this is all estimates, but the midpoint estimate of when he goes to what's Hispaniola, what's now Haiti and Dominican Republic, the midpoint estimate is he goes there and there's 8 million people and this is the midpoint it might be lower it might be higher i don't know but the middle estimate and that's 1492 when he eventually leaves in 1512 it's estimated that there are 20 000 people left there's a huge decimation of life when europeans go to because in the last day disease but it's not just disease it's many in dogs it's working people to death the the genocide in the americas generally is the largest genocide in human history up to 65 million people and this is i've read this and i was shocked apparently the world actually cooled because so many people died they were producing less greenhouse gas emissions and actually reduced the temperature of the earth so if you think about the founding the founding place for the west is the Americas and the founding, how the west took over the Americas was the largest genocide in human history, violence and disregard for life and then where did they go to find the labour after they worked to death the natives they go, oh we've got this African slave let's go and enslave Africans, turn them into non-humans.

1:25:28So if you were to say, yep, that barbarity, that anti-blackness, that racism, white supremacy, that's the difference. And that's what allows everything else to build. So what I'm asking though is, do you think that if West Africans, let's say, they had the ships, they had the muskets, they had the gunpowder, they had the various different types of technology that enabled Western Europeans to go over to the Americas and do what you're talking about, Do you think that if the West African tribes, perhaps some of those more aggressive ones that enslaved other Africans, if they had all that technology and they went over to the Americas, do you think they would have behaved differently because of their different culture and background?

1:26:11Or do you think they would have done the same thing? I think evidence says they did behave differently. Like I said, there's evidence that Africans were in the Americas at least a thousand years before Europeans. So I think certainly the case would be that, yes, there is a difference. Why do you think that is? Look, I'm not going to sit here and speculate because there's something better about Africans that Africans have a superior morality. I'm just asking. Look, there's... But it's just the way that when you talk about whiteness, it's implied the way that white people think. So I want to be clear here.

1:26:46Okay. I am not... See, it would be very easy to be the city man. Baku's my favorite person Baku's right saying look the devilish nature of the white man it just shows and people say that all the time right I'm actually saying that whiteness is not a bad you don't agree with that no I don't think all white people are devils no I don't I think that we can debate what could have happened what may have happened why it wasn't but the reality is that it was that carnage that racial expectation that was necessary to create the society we have and so that's why we have whiteness I'm not challenging that I don't know I can't tell you why but I can tell you that is But what I'm asking you to think about for the purposes of this guy, I think it's really important to this discussion, right, is you talk about whiteness.

1:27:28It's kind of hard to extricate that from white people. It's difficult for most people at least listen to this, right? And it's sort of implied within that that the way whiteness operates is worse than the way other things operate, right? And what I'm asking you is, do you think if Africans had the same ability to dominate the native population of the Americas, would they have behaved the same or different? So, yeah, I'll be clear on this. No. I think when I say whiteness is an idea, and that is an idea that has come from Western Europe. Yeah. That is an idea that has used to dominate the world.

1:28:01That was a necessary feature of doing it because Africans went to the New World and didn't do this. So, yes, there is something specific. But they didn't have the same technology. No, that's not. They'd have muskets and etc. As I said, when Europeans came in 40, they weren't massively more technologically advanced. Oh, come on. There's a reason why the Portuguese don't have slave plantations in Africa. They can't. They literally can't do it. So it's not the case that Europe's first impact, Europe just comes into Africa able to control. It's not the case. It takes a long time to develop. The jury's out on that.

1:28:33But let me come back. If they had the technology, of course they would have been the same. I mean, this idea that you didn't have terrible bloodshed happening and prejudice and the same sort of issues of racism happening within Africa. I mean, of course you did. If you look in Central Africa, you had the Bantu were persecuting the Pygneys and killing them. If you look in Ethiopia, you had the Bantus themselves were the victims and being persecuted. In Somalia, the Abyssinians were murdering and hunting the Shankela, who are Nylotic Valley people. and this is not about white supremacy. I mean, when African slaves were taken to Islam, to the Arab world, they were regarded as the lowest social structure because the prejudice is there.

1:29:16Same thing with the Chinese in the Tang dynasty who, of course, regarded African slaves as the Kunlun and were frightened by them. So this idea that something is unique to the West and unique to white people is simply not true. What is interesting, of course, is the exploration ethic of Europeans, which you don't find. Again, China had a massive fleet. Its ships were far better than European ships. It never discovered the Americas. You don't see the exploration that you saw within Europe, again, because of the distinction of the Western mine and that whole concept of exploring and developing was very much fundamentally a European concept.

1:29:51You know, it's amazing, for example, it also goes down to individuality and the anglosphere. So the first person to walk the length of the Nile was an Englishman, and that happened about 10 years ago. Imagine that. After all the thousands of years, the first person to walk the length of the Nile was an Englishman. First person to walk the length of the Amazon was an Englishman. Sorry, how do you know this? One second, one second. How do you know this? Well, in recorded history. So you don't know? Well, I'm sorry. You don't know. We do have records. Records that you have, but you actually don't know.

1:30:18Well, nobody who was African or South American has done it, at least within the last 300 years of recorded history. And the first person to walk the length of the Yangtze was a Welshman, again around 10 years ago. Now that's in China with an ancient civilization. Why did no one from China think about walking the length of the Yangtze? First person to walk around the world and run around the world, American and English. Same thing with Everest and so forth. There is a uniqueness to the West in the idea of exploring and discovering, which you don't see elsewhere. and that's part of the reason why you developed empire.

1:30:48Your point is the British love of war, I get it. I do want to come back because actually there is something specific about European rationality, which is the problem. Tell me. So when, and I think, and again, you don't believe me here, but you can't really separate whiteness from this. And so Descartes, I think therefore I am, is really, I'm white therefore I am. In fact, you've given this argument a bit today. There's something different about Europe. We're not the natives, we're not Africans, we're not this. And that allows the separation of mind from body, which you actually don't see around most of the parts of the world.

1:31:14So African tends to be... I mean, the Chinese think they're different. The Japanese think they're very different. Even with the Chinese, you think about the relationship to the earth, you think about... There's something about European rationality, the distancing of it, that allows... Not just with people, but with the world, with the earth, with the... Look at... The actual world is going to be destroyed by Europe. Like, literally going to be destroyed by science. The Chinese thought they were superior to the whole rest of the world. They stopped developing because they thought they had reached peak civilization.

1:31:38I'm not saying Chinese... This is not about superiority. Japanese are not superior. I'm talking about the separation of mind from body. You don't see that in Chinese culture. There's a much more holistic version of what the person is. When you separate mind from body in that way, you can then distance yourself from certain atrocities in the way that we do. Like today, nine million people die from hunger today because of the West. And we're going to go, okay, the exploitation of the Earth in a way that is actually going to literally destroy the Earth. I agree, there's something unique about that in Western rationality, which is deeply problematic, which allows us to kill to main, to destroy the world.

1:32:10And actually going to end the world. Do you know what? We were so close to a point of agreement there because you were both agreeing. And actually, maybe, maybe, I actually, there is something to what you're saying in the sense that everything has a trade-off, right? So it's possible that a particularly, slightly more rationalistic way of thinking about it has some negative trade-offs and a lot of positive things about it. It actually could be very possible that in some ways you're both right on this. And on that bombshell. And on that bombshell, we've actually managed to get the two of you to agree.

1:32:43No, gentlemen, I actually have to say I really appreciate you both coming. I thought we had a very informative discussion. These debates often descend into stuff. I thought we strayed away from that as much as we could. We'll wrap up in a second, but perhaps you'd like both to take a couple of minutes just to sum up based on this conversation where, you know, just the core of your argument once again for people as we wrap this up? I mean, I'll finish where I started. There are no good arguments against reparations. It's been an interesting conversation, but the fact that this is clear, the knife in the back, it wasn't taken out.

1:33:14And if you can acknowledge that there should have been reparatory justice in 1838 or whatever, and that didn't take place, I just don't see how you can hold the argument that it should take place. There are clear economic consequences which still reverberate around the world from slavery, but not just slavery, colonialism, neocolonialism, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There's this huge gap in wealth and experience and life expectancy, not just life expectancy, but just life experience in general that needs to be addressed. And if we're serious about racial justice, the only way to do it is to one, acknowledge it and then to address it.

1:33:40And that is going to need reparatory justice. It is time the Caribbean nations and other communities look inwards and see what is it about our culture and our community we need to change. Stop this victimhood. Learn about personal responsibility. Take agency. Improve your lot in life. We in Britain should be celebrating the fact that we were the first power to deliberately make itself poorer, to advance a moral good. There are no living victims of British Empire slavery. And I think we need to move on from this chapter and understand that at its core, this is all about undermining Britain, America and the West more broadly.

1:34:16This is not about slavery. If it was, people would be talking about modern slavery today in Africa with 10 million slaves. That's never spoken about. And surely the lives of people today are far more important. And the fact that that issue isn't even spoken about once in any article on this subject, I think speaks volumes about the true motivations behind a lot of those who are calling for reparations. All right. Well, I appreciate you both coming. Thank you for watching and listening. I hope you enjoyed it. If you did, make sure to like, subscribe and share it with others who you think might find it interesting.

1:34:44See you soon.

1:35:13We'll be right back. at simplisafe.com slash spotify or with promo code spotify. Outdoor deterrence requires a SimpliSafe Active Guard outdoor protection plan starting at$49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com slash licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee 2012.