Anonymous
Post 09/15/2022 09:58     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:My great grand father was marched into the woods and shot in the head along with thousands of others. My grandmother hated every Russian until the day she died. I now have friends who are Russian because sitting around randomly hating people has never made for a better world and because they are cool people.


Sure, but are your Russian friends oligarchs who made millions off of their forebears shooting people in the head? Holding a private citizen responsible for the past is very different from holding a filthy rich head of the country responsible.
Anonymous
Post 09/15/2022 09:52     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.


This is such a rationalization. No, being a slave because of your race was not any different than being a slave due to your ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribeā€ being defeated by another ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribe.ā€ 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 donā€™t live in the past and strive to live well. That is the best we can do.
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.


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?
Anonymous
Post 09/15/2022 08:22     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.



Honey, that's not "Western slavery", that's US slavery. You own it.


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 werenā€™t many descendants.


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.




False.

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


"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. Initially the slaves were transported to Seville or Canary Islands, but from 1525 slaves were transported directly from the island Sao TomƩ across the Atlantic to Hispaniola.[56] Decisive was the Treaty of Tordesillas which did not allow Spanish ships in African ports. Spain had to rely on Portuguese ships and sailors 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 ā€“ Estimates". slavevoyages. Retrieved 5 February 2021.



Anonymous
Post 09/15/2022 03:43     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.



Honey, that's not "Western slavery", that's US slavery. You own it.


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 werenā€™t many descendants.


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.




False.

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



Many slaves were taken to the Caribbean first, then to the US, by the British. Of course, if we are honest, we should stop celebrating President's Day instead of attacking the Brit Queen.
Anonymous
Post 09/15/2022 03:03     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.



Honey, that's not "Western slavery", that's US slavery. You own it.


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 werenā€™t many descendants.


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.




False.

Other than Brazil, most slaves went to the US. Spain did not join the slave traffic like Britain and Portugal did.
Anonymous
Post 09/15/2022 01:26     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.


Did people in this thread say that? There's a space between abandoning the US entirely and zero restorative justice.


People keep saying what that would look like and beyond apologizing and returning some stones no one seems to have any other reasonable suggestions.


Not sure we're a bunch of historians who could offer reasonable suggestions that make sense. But maybe someone of the Queen's stature and resources could have networked with people who would have had some good ideas?

Nah, it must be TOTALLY impossible.


The Queen did not network. She used the art of diplomacy and was a master at it.
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 16:22     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



Interestingly, black Africans and black Latinos who struggled to get to the US have a different opinion on the impact of slavery and systemic racism on black Americans. The short version: immigrants canā€™t understand why black Americans havenā€™t prospered here given all the opportunities they haveā€”particularly as compared with the lack of opportunities for say Somalians in Somalia who fight to get here and quickly build nice middle-class/UMC lives despite language barriers, etc.

You would probably be shocked by what black immigrants think of black Americans. Shocked.

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



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.


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.


This is such a rationalization. No, being a slave because of your race was not any different than being a slave due to your ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribeā€ being defeated by another ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribe.ā€ 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 donā€™t live in the past and strive to live well. That is the best we can do.
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.
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 15:09     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.


This is such a rationalization. No, being a slave because of your race was not any different than being a slave due to your ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribeā€ being defeated by another ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribe.ā€ 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 donā€™t live in the past and strive to live well. That is the best we can do.
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.
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 12:06     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.



Honey, that's not "Western slavery", that's US slavery. You own it.


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 werenā€™t many descendants.


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.
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 11:50     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
While weā€™re vilifying leaders how have we not gotten to the Pope?
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 11:48     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.



Honey, that's not "Western slavery", that's US slavery. You own it.


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 werenā€™t many descendants.
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 11:44     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


You have some nerve, I have to say,šŸ˜”. 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


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).


The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave tradeā€¦
FTFY



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



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.


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.


This is such a rationalization. No, being a slave because of your race was not any different than being a slave due to your ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribeā€ being defeated by another ā€œnation, ethnicity, tribe.ā€ 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 donā€™t live in the past and strive to live well. That is the best we can do.
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 11:32     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.


Did people in this thread say that? There's a space between abandoning the US entirely and zero restorative justice.


People keep saying what that would look like and beyond apologizing and returning some stones no one seems to have any other reasonable suggestions.


Not sure we're a bunch of historians who could offer reasonable suggestions that make sense. But maybe someone of the Queen's stature and resources could have networked with people who would have had some good ideas?

Nah, it must be TOTALLY impossible.


When people are dead, that is just really really hard to fix.
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 10:26     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.


Did people in this thread say that? There's a space between abandoning the US entirely and zero restorative justice.




You're an imperialist btch
Anonymous
Post 09/14/2022 10:19     Subject: How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.


Did people in this thread say that? There's a space between abandoning the US entirely and zero restorative justice.



Why?