History is grimy. Sure, this wasn't the most justice-wielding action at the time, but was probably the best option for freeing the slaves in the first place, which is arguably the priority.
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
52 points (91.9% liked)
okmatewanker
1004 readers
4 users here now
No foul language - i.e. French ๐คฎ
Obviously satire, dozy wankers
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You're Captain Kirk and are exploring a new planet. In the course of your duties you discover that Orion slave traders have been here and the inhabitants are slave owners. You're horrified by what you're seeing and feel you must free the slaves above all else.
Do you:
- Attack the owners with the objective of breaking the slaves out and escaping unharmed.
- Buy all the slaves and walk out with them safely. Then set them all free immediately.
I'd argue that in a lot of situations the second call is better. It guarantees the safety and the freedom of the enslaved person. The first option sounds heroic but the outcome is far from predicable.
- You may lose the fight, and the situation continues
- Enslaved people may get caught in the crossfire, or more likely made to fight against you. You now have to defeat the people you're trying to free.
- You're partially successful, but those that remain are treated even worse as the owner takes their losses out on them.
The one downside is that the slave owner has now been paid and may use that money to buy more slaves. However if you also get Starfleet to setup a blockade of the planet Orion to stop them moving slaves throughout the galaxy you can cut things off at source.
Regardless. What matters is the freedom of the individuals. No ex-slave was angry at somebody who paid to set them free. I'm sure they were angry with everyone else in the chain, but that last one... They get a pass.
A solidly pragmatic answer.
The "pro-vengeance because it feels good " will be upset, but I like your analysis
Were the reparations for taking away their slaves?!
Yes.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2022/the-collection-of-slavery-compensation-1835-43
paid slave owners ยฃ20 million as compensation for the loss of their "property"
Ah yes, sit with your comfortable view of hindsight.
Buying the slaves back at the time was the best option. It wasn't perfect, but it was the best guaranteed way of freeing the slaves without bloodshed.
Among those revealed to have benefited from slavery are ancestors of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, former minister Douglas Hogg, authors Graham Greene and George Orwell, poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and the new chairman of the Arts Council, Peter Bazalgette. Other prominent names which feature in the records include scions of one of the nation's oldest banking families, the Barings, and the second Earl of Harewood, Henry Lascelles, an ancestor of the Queen's cousin. Some families used the money to invest in the railways and other aspects of the industrial revolution; others bought or maintained their country houses, and some used the money for philanthropy. George Orwell's great-grandfather, Charles Blair, received ยฃ4,442, equal to ยฃ3m today, for the 218 slaves he owned.
Cameron and Orwell doesn't surprise me. I am surprised by a lack of other conservative politicians.