I once came across a hilarious Yahoo question asking how many slaves Queen Victoria had.
It may have been projection since many American presidents had slaves during her lifetime, and everyone knows monarchs must be wickeder tyrants than elected presidents; but jeez, Albert was even a patron of the Anti-Slavery Society.
I once came across a hilarious Yahoo question asking how many slaves Queen Victoria had.
It may have been projection since many American presidents had slaves during her lifetime, and everyone knows monarchs must be wickeder tyrants than elected presidents; but jeez, Albert was even a patron of the Anti-Slavery Society.
Ah yes. You called then indentured servants, right? And of course enslaved our sailors to man your ships.
Ah yes. You called then indentured servants, right? And of course enslaved our sailors to man your ships.
Remember when things happen. What you mention was 1700s to the War of 1812. Slavery was outlawed in the British Empire in 1833 (and the remaining exception colonies in 1843.
Queen Victoria was queen from 1837...after the abolition of slavery in the British Isles.
Queen Elizabeth was 1500s to 1603, but before the Empire really was established.
Ah yes. You called then indentured servants, right? And of course enslaved our sailors to man your ships.
Not really, and not by the Victorian period. English peasants were badly treated, as were Chinese, French, Japanese, Spanish etc. --- the profession of peasant was never a royal road to fortune --- but they weren't bought and sold in markets by slave-traders.
Indentured Servants were frequently apprentices, quite capable of rioting etc.; it was a foolish slave who rioted --- he would be set on fire. And to be truthful most of the unfortunate Yank seamen who were grabbed by the British in the Napoleonic Wars were British born runaways. The American government dropped those particular charges at the Treaty of Ghent. And they were paid like any other British Tar.
Not really, and not by the Victorian period. English peasants were badly treated, as were Chinese, French, Japanese, Spanish etc. --- the profession of peasant was never a royal road to fortune --- but they weren't bought and sold in markets by slave-traders.
Indentured Servants were frequently apprentices, quite capable of rioting etc.; it was a foolish slave who rioted --- he would be set on fire. And to be truthful most of the unfortunate Yank seamen who were grabbed by the British in the Napoleonic Wars were British born runaways. The American government dropped those particular charges at the Treaty of Ghent. And they were paid like any other British Tar.
You know, I think the real objection is that since you all enslaved the entirety of India, the Americans were just pikers.
I really love it when British "potato famine" "we have the maxim gun and they have not" People attempt to pull the moral superiority card on Americans.
At least Americans only had slaves of another country of which sold their own people to become slaves in the first place... I mean, if you really want to blame the core of slavery, it is the Africans. America in the 16th century was starving for labor to build their infrastructure and really wasn't respected until after WWII. The British in contrast treated their own citizens as possessions throughout history (and still do in a lot of ways), which inspired the American Revolution since people had somewhere to run from the British empire.
That said, I don't consider either country in morally wrong grounds. Countries are direct manifestations of the competition of resources which change dynamically on needs and technology. Its a dog eat dog world, if you can't secure your own countries borders and sovereignty, you have no one to blame for your downfall but yourself. This is why an open border globalization mindset is so damaging, rather than everyone responsible for their own prosperity, they have to grovel to some far away central global unity for permission, and of course that ironically starts the very conflicts globalization seeks to avoid.
You know, I think the real objection is that since you all enslaved the entirety of India, the Americans were just pikers.
I really love it when British "potato famine" "we have the maxim gun and they have not" People attempt to pull the moral superiority card on Americans.
Pretty much this, Britain could afford to play at enlightenment because it had moved all the savage exploitation overseas and didn't need it at home at that point.
This is why an open border globalization mindset is so damaging, rather than everyone responsible for their own prosperity, they have to grovel to some far away central global unity for permission[...]
7, sometimes I think you're the ultimate shitposter. Other times, though, I think you're the only sane man.
"Africans are entirely responsible for their own people being enslaved and sold to other places. Yup. Totally their own fault, and the people buying those slaves are in no way culpable in the slave trade at all."
"Closing our borders will totally stop our country from falling to ruin. I mean surely, internal stagnation and xenophobic idiocy surely won't rot us from the inside! Nope. The only problems are foreigners. Just them. Now gimme your resources, my responsibility to my place means making yours shittier and you have no right to question it."
Somehow you can actually believe the two paragraphs you made aren't contradictory, but I should expect that degeneracy from your kind. The philosophy you're espousing has been tried countless times, and it has failed just as any times. It's horseshit, and trying to go back to it will only make things worse.
Trying to claim the British have moral superiority over Americans because they stopped using slave labor a few years earlier than the Americans is like saying that you're not like than that monster who ate twelve babies because you only ate eleven babies.
