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]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]

This is such a rationalization.  No, being a slave because of your race was not any different than being a slave due to your “nation, ethnicity, tribe” being defeated by another “nation, ethnicity, tribe.”  You were a slave; mortality was high; you were humiliated and demeaned.

There is a desire to vilify Europeans and Americans as somehow uniquely evil.  Anyone who has studied world history knows this is not true.  Humans have always taken land and conquered others.  The idea that somehow we can freeze history and say that descendants of certain groups are victims while others bear responsibility for actions they did not commit is ludicrous.  All of us alive need to be grateful that we don’t live in the past and strive to live well.  That is the best we can do.[/quote]  I don't agree about the desire to paint us as uniquely evil.  I do think Americans, (and maybe the English the point of this thread) Like to think very highly of ourselves and we don't like to acknowledge our difficult, complicated history.  And that the consequences of enslavement still harm black people today.[/quote]

Thank you! The point wasn't to justify slavery, but to acknowledge the difference between slavery in other parts of the worlds and slavery in the western world. Western slavery saw the complete subjugation of a people simply for the color of their skin, not for having conquered their nation, and continued systemic discrimination that continue to impact people of color. If it was purely about having conquered a country and using the labor force, then it is interesting how Britain had an empire that contained subjects of all racial profile and backgrounds, yet the only ones who were enslaved were Indians (Southeast Asia) and Blacks. Where were the white slaves?[/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