› ›
Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime

Research is driving me nuts

ClaudiaClaudia
edited May 2009 in - Writing Problems
Internet research is driving me nuts (again). So many conflicting dates on different websites means I can’t reliably include certain facts in my Indentured Labourers article.
According to which website I look at, slavery was abolished in 1838, 1834, 1833 or 1807…
It’s so irritating!

Comments

  • CarolCarol
    You might need to be more specific on where it was abolished, it was different in different counties.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act this was 1807 in the UK area.
    "The act abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, but not slavery itself; that remained legal until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833."

    This will explain the different dates.
  • JennyJenny
    There was a programme on present-day slavery on TV the other day.
  • dorothyddorothyd
    Claudia, it is not only the Internet. I have just told BBC History magazine that their article in the March issue on the earl was wrong. But the author of the piece joins a long long list of those who get his information wrong, and these are people who have supposedly done their research! It does drive writers mad.
  • ClaudiaClaudia
    That's true, Carol. The 1807 date referred to Abolition of the Slave Trade and seemed to refer to the transatlantic trade. However all the 1830's dates are on websites about the indentured labourers in Fiji and the south pacific; the area I'm interested in.
    Bearing in mind we are talking about the British abolition of the slave trade (because Fiji was ceded to Britain), would you say 1833 is the correct date with regards to abolition in Fiji?
  • Jay MandalJay Mandal
    Is it worth mentioning that date varies according to 'sources'? That could trigger another article.
  • ClaudiaClaudia
    edited May 2009
    Dorothy - the BBC can be hopeless can't they? One of their websites says Fiji comprises 800 islands; in fact it comprises approximately 300.
  • ClaudiaClaudia
    Good suggestion, Jay!
  • ClaudiaClaudia
    Okay, I'm off to rethink this a bit. Be back later.
  • dorothyddorothyd
    the editor was so surprised when he wrote to me about it ... this fact is glaringly wrong. The Earl, (wrongly referred to as Woodville throughout, not Rivers, his proper title) was made guardian of the young Prince of Wales and went to live at Ludlow to tutor him. This ******* said he was made guardian AFTER Edward IV died ... which was just the point when history went bananas. Edward died in April, the Woodvilles were all but thrown out. the Earl was arrested in May, executed in June, not much time to appoint someone as guardian in that lot ... and this ****** declared Woodville was his hero!!!!! I despair ...
  • Island GirlIsland Girl
    [quote=claudia]"...says Fiji comprises 800 islands; in fact it comprises approximately 300"[/quote]
    A 3 could look like an 8 if it was written illegibly. Either that, or someone was lysdexic. :)
  • JennyJenny
    Or pistud?
  • Island GirlIsland Girl
    Hehehe - that too, Jenny. Or both. Exdyslic AND pistud.:D What a combination.
  • JennyJenny
    Claudia - What about the Encyclopaedia Britannica - would that be more reliable?
  • Jay MandalJay Mandal
    Could the dates thing be something to do with when the Bill was passed; and when it came into force? I think sometimes there's a bit of leeway so people have time to make preparations.
  • CarolCarol
    I would say that in theory Fiji could have been affected by the 1807 date, but the REALITY would likely be very different.
    For a start there would be the length of time it would take for the 'official' order to come into action, and be communicated with Fiji- months to start with.
    Then depending on whether they had enough man power and sea power in Fiji to enforce it- so it would likely have continued with only occasional interference.
    Corruption in the upper echelons was not unknown, so a British official may have just paid lip service to it, because financially it was not to his benefit.
    I would go with the 1833 date but mention the earlier date too (if Fiji was ceded to the British at that point) but say it's unclear whether the 1807 act had any effect in Fiji.
  • ClaudiaClaudia
    Hello again. Well, I've been for a lovely long walk and cleared my head. (Saw a deer too which was a nice bonus)

    There was no slavery in Fiji under the British; the country wasn't ceded to Britain until 1874. The reason my article mentions slavery is because after abolition, the British Empire had to find cheap labour by a different method. Thus the indentured labour system was devised; so cheap and cruel to its workers it was akin to slavery!

    I've decided to refer to the abolition of slavery more loosely; something that happened earlier that century. :)
  • CarolCarol
    Ah that explains it.
    Glad you were able to resolve it.
  • ClaudiaClaudia
    :)
  • Woll22Woll22
    I can recall someone years ago warning me to be circumspect about what one reads on the internet as being the gospel truth. It is not to be relied on too heavily. There is nothing at times to beat a book on the subject if you can find one. You can even order a particular book listed in your library online. Trawl through them and you will be surprised.
  • CarolCarol
    Agree Woll, you should always try for two or three confirming sources.
    But even books get facts wrong- ask Dorothy about that. Poor translation of old texts is a prime example of errors creeping in.
  • josiehenleyjosiehenley
    Have just finished reading a terrific book for my PhD (The Paradox of Sleep: The story of dreaming by Michel Jouvet translated from the French by Laurence Garey). A few lines struck me as something to remember, one of which is a paraphrase of Hippocrates: “Life is short, research long and difficult”.
  • CarolCarol
    :)
Sign In or Register to comment.