this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
154 points (92.3% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2358 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A new book, Ricardo’s Dream by Nat Dyer, reveals that Sir Isaac Newton’s wealth was closely tied to the transatlantic slave trade during his tenure as master of the mint at the Bank of England.

Newton profited from gold mined by enslaved Africans in Brazil, much of which was converted into British currency under his oversight, earning him a fee for each coin minted.

While Newton’s scientific legacy remains untarnished, the book highlights his financial entanglement with slavery, a common thread among Britain’s banking and finance elites of the era.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 55 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

By our standards he may have been a peice of crap.

At the time he was born in the society he lived in his wealth gained in a largley accepted manner.

I see no need to go back over history constantly bringing this shit up.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Nah, by their standards, he was a colossal piece of crap too. He was very much disliked. He was known to be humorless and just kind of a jerk overall. He was also pretty useless a lot of the time. He was elected to parliament and only spoke one time during his tenure there. He said, "the window needs closing." Really.

And then when he took over the mint, he was just ruthless in prosecuting anyone he could for any reason he could find. He had a witch hunt for counterfeiters after there was a change in coinage. It was pretty nuts. So yeah, he was always a piece of shit. This just makes him a bigger piece of shit.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, but I think the point is to judge him by the standards of the time. That might still label him a jerk, and so be it.

Maybe he was a neuro-diverse individual who saw little value in "people problems" and was only interested in maths and science. Today, we'd show more understanding to that, but we don't know. All we can say was he was a jerk in the eyes of those around him.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 9 hours ago

That is not an excuse for his witch hunt. And it was a witch hunt by the standards of the time, although they wouldn't have called it that obviously. He ruined people's lives. He literally got people executed. One was certainly guilty of counterfeiting, but he also just made a list of suspects when he was put in charge of the mint and went after them McCarthy style. You cannot argue that drawing up lists of people and having them rounded up on spurious charges based on a list of people you suspected might have been guilty was the norm then because it really wasn't.

Also, why should we judge him by the standards of the time? It was essentially "standard" for nobles to rape children who were put into arranged marriages with them because those children were considered property and brood mares all over the place and not just in the Western world. I sure as fuck judge Muhammad for marrying a six-year-old and raping her when she was nine. I don't care if that was the standard at the time. It's fucking disgusting.

[–] Themadbeagle@lemm.ee 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Newtons part in the slave trade is no less a part of the life and history of Newton then his contributions to science, why would we omit it? Calling him a piece of shit and saying he contributed to an awful system does not alter the fact that modern math and physics are where they are currently due to his contributions. Conversely, his contributions to science doesn't alter the fact he contributed to one of the worst systems in human history.

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

I'm not denying it I'm simply tired of the inevitable outcome that this brings

  1. Remove the statues
  2. Better not teach his theories in schools
  3. Someone HAS to apologise
  4. What about recompense in the form of money

It's a long fucking list and the guys been dead for a couple hundred years.

[–] Fish@midwest.social 6 points 4 hours ago

Watson and Crick are/were giant pieces of shit. We still teach about them. Many biology teachers will openly state that Watson is a terrible person

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago

Curious for your take on Confederate statues in the US

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 6 hours ago

Not excusing the past, OR the present, but people a few centuries from now will call us monsters.

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 1 points 9 hours ago

Not when there is so much to be done today.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee -5 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

I see no need to go back over history constantly bringing this shit up.

Bringing what up? The truth?

You might as well say that you don't see a need to even observe history if you take issue with people discussing the verifiable fact that Newton's wealth came from slavery.

If anything, it sounds like you might have a vested interest in downplaying information like this. I would be curious to see where your family's wealth came from.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Ok, but what do you want anyone to do about it? The guy has been dead for hundreds of years and we can't just pretend that gravity and calculus don't exist because he was a dick.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 10 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

People don't just see Issac Newton as an important scientific contributor. They idolize him. Same for people like Thomas Jefferson. Appreciating history means understanding the full range of the people involved. When things like this are downplayed, it gives in to a narrative of history that supports terrible policies today.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I suspect most people would be hard pressed to name anything about him other than gravity.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 3 points 7 hours ago

I don't think anyone is idolizing him because of slavery.

[–] dumbass@leminal.space 1 points 10 hours ago

This is how I see it, if they were someone from history who was rich, I assume it's because of slavery. It's easier to count the amount of people who got rich without slavery on your hands.