Reply to How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Right because if all these places were never colonized they would have all joined hands across Asia or Africa and lived in harmony. The world happens. Wrongs cannot be made right. Blood money doesn't wash away the blood. There is no going back, only forward. [/quote]

You have some nerve, I have to say,😡. Goes back to the assumption that people living there were savages who would have killed each other. British went to places that they could loot and benefit from. Simple[/quote]

And, of course, all the colonizers of Africa were also drivers of the slave trade and then used the trade to justify colonization (because of course any non-European group that participated in the trade must be incapable of self-rule).[/quote]

The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave trade…
FTFY[/quote]

Africans SOLD slaves.

Arabs bought them and sold them to the British.

The British bought them to resell them in the Colonies.

Quite a feat to ignore everyone in this chain but the British :-)[/quote]

Liberals like to ignore Africans and Arabs involved in the slave trade.  The prefer to patronize Africans and Arabs as people who couldn't possibly be smart enough to be involved in any type of trade.  [/quote]

This is dumb. Slavery existed for ages. Western slavery based on race is different. Slavery, historically, was based on conquering nations and having ownership of the captured and profitting if it was one's desire. The Romans sold slave, as did the people you mentioned; however, the concept of slavery was very different than the brutalization that occured in the Americas. [/quote]

Honey, that's not "Western slavery", that's US slavery. You own it.[/quote]

This is also a joke.  Slavery in the Caribbean and South America was so much more brutal that although the numbers were much greater to start, there weren’t many descendants.  [/quote]

A very small percentage of enslaved Africans were transported to the US. I've seen the number stated as between 3-6% of enslaved Africans who were transported to this hemisphere.[/quote]

False.

Other than Brazil, most slaves went to the US. Spain did not join the slave traffic like Britain and Portugal did.[/quote]

"Well over 90 percent of enslaved Africans were sent to the Caribbean and South America. Only about 6 percent of African captives were sent directly to British North America."
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teacher-resources/historical-context-facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery

"The First Atlantic system was the trade of enslaved Africans to, primarily, South American colonies of the Portuguese and Spanish empires. During the first Atlantic system, most of these traders were Portuguese, giving them a near-monopoly. [b]Initially the slaves were transported to Seville or Canary Islands,[/b] but from 1525 slaves were transported directly from the island Sao Tomé across the Atlantic to Hispaniola.[56] Decisive was the Treaty of Tordesillas which [b]did not allow Spanish ships in African ports. Spain had to rely on Portuguese ships and sailors[/b] to bring slaves across the Atlantic. Around 1560 the Portuguese began a regular slave trade to Brazil. From 1580 till 1640 Portugal was temporarily united with Spain in the Iberian Union. Most Portuguese contractors who obtained the asiento between 1580 and 1640 were conversos.[57] For Portuguese merchants, many of whom were "New Christians" or their descendants, the union of crowns presented commercial opportunities in the slave trade to Spanish America.[58][59]"
 Lockhart and Schwartz, Early Latin America, p. 225, p. 250.

"Until the middle of the 17th century Mexico was the largest single market for slaves in Spanish America.[60] While the Portuguese were directly involved in trading enslaved peoples to Brazil, the Spanish empire relied on the Asiento de Negros system, awarding (Catholic) Genoese merchant bankers the license to trade enslaved people from Africa to their colonies in Spanish America. Cartagena, Veracruz, Buenos Aires, and Hispaniola received the majority of slave arrivals, mainly from Angola."
 Atlantic History and the Slave Trade to Spanish America by ALEX BORUCKI, DAVID ELTIS, AND DAVID WHEAT , p. 437, 446

Flag of vessels carrying the slaves
Destination	Portuguese	British	French	Spanish	Dutch	American	Danish	Total
Portuguese Brazil	4,821,127	3,804	9,402	1,033	27,702	1,174	130	        4,864,372
British Caribbean	7,919	2,208,296	22,920	5,795	6,996	64,836	1,489	2,318,251
French Caribbean	2,562	90,984	1,003,905	725	12,736	6,242	3,062	        1,120,216
Spanish Americas	195,482	103,009	92,944	808,851	24,197	54,901	13,527	1,292,911
Dutch Americas	500	32,446	5,189	0	392,022	9,574	4,998	                           444,729
North America	382	264,910	8,877	1,851	1,212	110,532	983	                           388,747
Danish West Indies	0	25,594	7,782	277	5,161	2,799	67,385	                   108,998
Europe	2,636	3,438	664	0	2,004	119	0	                                                      8,861
Africa	69,206	841	13,282	66,391	3,210	2,476	162	                                   155,568
Did not arrive	748,452	526,121	216,439	176,601	79,096	52,673	19,304	        1,818,686
Total	5,848,266	3,259,443	1,381,404	1,061,524	554,336	305,326	111,040	                      12,521,339

"Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade – Estimates". slavevoyages. Retrieved 5 February 2021.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics