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.
I really do believe that people remember historical figures moreso for their achievements and impact on the world and society. Than ever the characteristics of their human personality.
Because let’s be honest, a lot of historical figures - might surprise you - aren’t exactly great people at the whole humanitarian department.
I think it might have more to do with the fact that our perception of morality changes with societal norms. People in the 19th century probably looked at Roman gay sex as something bad and vulgar because gays were bad. Now we view Roman gay sex in a positive light.
Were the 19th century people bad people because they viewed homosexuality as something bad? Or do we consider them bad just because we no longer see homosexuality as something bad? What if 200 years from now homosexuality is considered bad again, do the 19th century people become good?
Maybe we shouldn’t apply our current moral values to people who lived at a different time with different moral values?
Isn’t that contingent on a person’s parameters for what they consider humane? Good and evil are subjective concepts that will never be objective. Wouldn’t you agree the definition for what you are calling humanitarian department is constantly evolving? For example, it was considered humane to designate women as the caretaker and men as the provider but now the idea of taking away a man or women’s option for how they want to build their family’s framework is inhumane as fuck. Also I’m not implying anything about a family being between a man and women or any gender related shit. I simply mean to include the full range of our species’ sexes.
Edit for further context: what i mean is that the fault doesn’t always point to historic records omitting truths to fit a narrative. There are plenty of examples of the records being accurate, but societal parameters for what is considered humane or inhumane is what evolved.