videokim wrote:
> The Roman & Vikings also slave traded but we rejuvenated it in
> modern times as i did say in my last post...you are so busy
> thinking of your next smart arsed message that you are not even
> reading posts now Eric lol!
No mention of Romans or Vikings in your last post or even the one above (cut and paste here to jog your memory):
(Videokim wrote: "We as in the English & Dutch made most of Africa see slavery as a profitable business in the first place (modern history) & we planted the seeds for what's happening today".)
So far from ME not reading posts, it seems you can't even remember what you wrote 5 minutes ago !laugh!.
And your statement that "we rejuvented it in modern times" is clearly bobbins. As I explained - it's been going on unabated since the dawn of history. Which you'd know if you could be arsed to to a bit of reading on the subject.
So rather that just toss around lazy accusations of "racist", why not just answer the point, which I'll put again: (a) What's your take on slavery in Africa (i.e. the slavery NOT involving the Europeans that stretches back to the time of the Pharoahs and continues even today) and (2) is slavery OK by you if it's black-on-black?
Look forward to seeing what you have to say on that. Cheers!
- Eric
Race issues...
Re: Sam Slater
videokim wrote:
> "Good one Kim. When someone disagrees with or challenges you,
> just shout them down as "racist". Works every time."
>
> Thats the biggest cop out if ever i heard one lol!
>
>
Couldn't agree more Kim: Ignoring the point put to you and just calling people "racist" instead IS a massive cop-out. Glad you agree.
- Eric
> "Good one Kim. When someone disagrees with or challenges you,
> just shout them down as "racist". Works every time."
>
> Thats the biggest cop out if ever i heard one lol!
>
>
Couldn't agree more Kim: Ignoring the point put to you and just calling people "racist" instead IS a massive cop-out. Glad you agree.
- Eric
-
one eyed jack
- Posts: 12410
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: videokim...
Thanks for answering Max
Youre answer told all I needed to know. You may well not be a racist but only a white man could answer that the way you did.
In a way, you virtually answered how I expected you would because you simply couldnt pretend to be black to humour me
Why?
Because you have no experience of what it is to be black and you certainly have no experience of what its like to be enslaved (nor have I) so your answer is a justification for why "massuh" should live for two reasons:
Your sense of morality. It is wrong to kill or you just dont have the stomach for it and the most important other reason is that you empathised with that white man because you are indeed white also.
I dnt blame you for that. Its not a put down. Just thanks for answering it.
My answer would be to kill that motherfucker for even buying me in the first place and I'd sooner be one dead n***er than live as a slave. Hell I'd probably be the one thinking there was no out and go for broke. Theres no escape anyway, unless yo uknew your way to Mexico
Nat Turner had the right answer. I wouldve been one of those guys hanging from a tree when caught by the posse but in death I wouldnt have to suffer the psychological trauma of being a slave for life....Unless of course I became conditioned to it but I know the hate would burn so hard in my heart at the frustration of how a man could do that to me that I would feel he was evil and in that justification, like any evil, it should be destroyed with the same extreme prejudice it had for me being a slave...Of course if I was treated kindly I could be lulled into thinking "massuh" was ok and live happily with a roof over my head baling his hay.
Think thats nasty Max?
Try empathising with someone like Nat Turner instead of thinking he was evil for the rebellion he started. I dont agree with him killing all those famillies but I wasnt in his position having to make that hard decision but I can understand the hate that hate produced from the act no man should own another in that way.
Money changed that concept though. Slavery is a lot less subtle these days
You and I think in different ways. To illustrate a point. I make porn. You buy porn (or at least, I assume you do) Different sides of the fence right there.
If I ever killed anyone without impunity it would be because I believed it was worth dying for to do so.
I just say the world be grateful that I am a loving man with a kind heart !happy!
You can also excuse me if I play the damn race card when I deem it necessary too. As I said, you start a thread like this, brace yourself for what comes with it. After all, we are having a discussion right?
I wonder if Nat Turner was swinging there on the tree with his neck broke that he was secretly comforted by the thought of all those evil people he kiled. Indeed, he wouldve seen every last racist one of them that way.
Its funny how we see this in different ways right?
Youre answer told all I needed to know. You may well not be a racist but only a white man could answer that the way you did.
In a way, you virtually answered how I expected you would because you simply couldnt pretend to be black to humour me
Why?
Because you have no experience of what it is to be black and you certainly have no experience of what its like to be enslaved (nor have I) so your answer is a justification for why "massuh" should live for two reasons:
Your sense of morality. It is wrong to kill or you just dont have the stomach for it and the most important other reason is that you empathised with that white man because you are indeed white also.
I dnt blame you for that. Its not a put down. Just thanks for answering it.
My answer would be to kill that motherfucker for even buying me in the first place and I'd sooner be one dead n***er than live as a slave. Hell I'd probably be the one thinking there was no out and go for broke. Theres no escape anyway, unless yo uknew your way to Mexico
Nat Turner had the right answer. I wouldve been one of those guys hanging from a tree when caught by the posse but in death I wouldnt have to suffer the psychological trauma of being a slave for life....Unless of course I became conditioned to it but I know the hate would burn so hard in my heart at the frustration of how a man could do that to me that I would feel he was evil and in that justification, like any evil, it should be destroyed with the same extreme prejudice it had for me being a slave...Of course if I was treated kindly I could be lulled into thinking "massuh" was ok and live happily with a roof over my head baling his hay.
Think thats nasty Max?
Try empathising with someone like Nat Turner instead of thinking he was evil for the rebellion he started. I dont agree with him killing all those famillies but I wasnt in his position having to make that hard decision but I can understand the hate that hate produced from the act no man should own another in that way.
Money changed that concept though. Slavery is a lot less subtle these days
You and I think in different ways. To illustrate a point. I make porn. You buy porn (or at least, I assume you do) Different sides of the fence right there.
If I ever killed anyone without impunity it would be because I believed it was worth dying for to do so.
I just say the world be grateful that I am a loving man with a kind heart !happy!
You can also excuse me if I play the damn race card when I deem it necessary too. As I said, you start a thread like this, brace yourself for what comes with it. After all, we are having a discussion right?
I wonder if Nat Turner was swinging there on the tree with his neck broke that he was secretly comforted by the thought of all those evil people he kiled. Indeed, he wouldve seen every last racist one of them that way.
Its funny how we see this in different ways right?
www.realcouples.com
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
www.onemanbanned.com
www.linkmojo.me/realcouples
www.twitter.com/realcouples
www.facebook.com/realcouples
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Eric..
"On a historical scale, our period of activity in the slave trade was relatively brief (a couple of centuries or so)
Relatively brief? I'm reminded of Einstein's explanation of the Theory of Relativity which I paraphrase here. if you spend two hours speaking with a beautiful woman, you feel, at the end of the two hours that you've spent only two minutes with her; while if you spend two minutes reading Flat Eric's posts, you feel you've spent two days!
It was over four centuries, Eric from about 1450 to 1850 and an estimated 12 million plus Africans were shipped to the Americas and the West Indies.
Yes, slavery was part of a number of different societies in Africa including Muslim traders and other Africans. But the economic model used by the Europeans was designed to ensure huge profits. The slaves were sold for huge profits in the Americas. Traders used the money to buy raw materials such as sugar, cotton, coffee, metals, and tobacco which were shipped back and sold in Europe.
In short, it was the slave trade which drove the commercial and Industrial Revolution in Britain.
To imply that this was just something like the Egyptian Pharoahs using slaves is farcical.
Relatively brief? I'm reminded of Einstein's explanation of the Theory of Relativity which I paraphrase here. if you spend two hours speaking with a beautiful woman, you feel, at the end of the two hours that you've spent only two minutes with her; while if you spend two minutes reading Flat Eric's posts, you feel you've spent two days!
It was over four centuries, Eric from about 1450 to 1850 and an estimated 12 million plus Africans were shipped to the Americas and the West Indies.
Yes, slavery was part of a number of different societies in Africa including Muslim traders and other Africans. But the economic model used by the Europeans was designed to ensure huge profits. The slaves were sold for huge profits in the Americas. Traders used the money to buy raw materials such as sugar, cotton, coffee, metals, and tobacco which were shipped back and sold in Europe.
In short, it was the slave trade which drove the commercial and Industrial Revolution in Britain.
To imply that this was just something like the Egyptian Pharoahs using slaves is farcical.
Re: Eric..
[quote]if you spend two hours speaking with a beautiful woman, you feel, at the end of the two hours that you've spent only two minutes with her; while if you spend two minutes reading Flat Eric's posts, you feel you've spent two days! [/quote]
I know it was meant as a put-down David but I actually laughed at that (see - I do have a sense of humour !laugh!).
[quote]It was over four centuries, Eric from about 1450 to 1850 and an estimated 12 million plus Africans were shipped to the Americas and the West Indies. [/quote]
It was mainly 1600 - 1800, peaking in the last 2 decades of the 18th century. A quick look for some figures on wiki tells you that only 3% of the transatlantic slave trade was between 1450 and 1600, with a further 16% up to 1700 and the rest afterwards up to the early 1800s.
[quote]In short, it was the slave trade which drove the commercial and Industrial Revolution in Britain. [/quote]
Never disputed that.
[quote]To imply that this was just something like the Egyptian Pharoahs using slaves is farcical. [/quote]
I'm sure that your average slave toiling to build the pyramids didn't have it much better than your average Gambian labouring in the cotton fields.
But irrespective of that - the point I was making was that over time there was far more inter-African slavery than transatlantic slavery and the human toll was probably far higher (given the time frame).
And slavery formed the basis of their societies and economies every bit as much as the slave triange drove our own industrial revolution.
Other interesting figures (wiki again): "Most historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 AD to 1900 AD".
And of course that's just the slaves exported (mainly to the Middle East) via that particular route.
- Eric
I know it was meant as a put-down David but I actually laughed at that (see - I do have a sense of humour !laugh!).
[quote]It was over four centuries, Eric from about 1450 to 1850 and an estimated 12 million plus Africans were shipped to the Americas and the West Indies. [/quote]
It was mainly 1600 - 1800, peaking in the last 2 decades of the 18th century. A quick look for some figures on wiki tells you that only 3% of the transatlantic slave trade was between 1450 and 1600, with a further 16% up to 1700 and the rest afterwards up to the early 1800s.
[quote]In short, it was the slave trade which drove the commercial and Industrial Revolution in Britain. [/quote]
Never disputed that.
[quote]To imply that this was just something like the Egyptian Pharoahs using slaves is farcical. [/quote]
I'm sure that your average slave toiling to build the pyramids didn't have it much better than your average Gambian labouring in the cotton fields.
But irrespective of that - the point I was making was that over time there was far more inter-African slavery than transatlantic slavery and the human toll was probably far higher (given the time frame).
And slavery formed the basis of their societies and economies every bit as much as the slave triange drove our own industrial revolution.
Other interesting figures (wiki again): "Most historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 AD to 1900 AD".
And of course that's just the slaves exported (mainly to the Middle East) via that particular route.
- Eric
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Eric..
"It was mainly 1600 - 1800"
Your previous post did not talk about "mainly" or concentrate on the high volume times. To remind you....
"our period of activity in the slave trade was relatively brief (a couple of centuries or so)"
This is wrong Eric and I pointed it out.
"But irrespective of that - the point I was making was that over time there was far more inter-African slavery than transatlantic slavery and the human toll was probably far higher (given the time frame)."
Yes, but the point you were also making was about "profitable business" see below., which was why I pointed out to you that the benefit accrued for African nations from their involvement in slavery was nothing compared to that obtained by the Europeans.
"Slavery was a "profitable business" in Africa at the time of the Egyptians and for centuries before the Europeans even arrived there.
Your previous post did not talk about "mainly" or concentrate on the high volume times. To remind you....
"our period of activity in the slave trade was relatively brief (a couple of centuries or so)"
This is wrong Eric and I pointed it out.
"But irrespective of that - the point I was making was that over time there was far more inter-African slavery than transatlantic slavery and the human toll was probably far higher (given the time frame)."
Yes, but the point you were also making was about "profitable business" see below., which was why I pointed out to you that the benefit accrued for African nations from their involvement in slavery was nothing compared to that obtained by the Europeans.
"Slavery was a "profitable business" in Africa at the time of the Egyptians and for centuries before the Europeans even arrived there.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam Slater
[quote]The closet racists are not so closet on here are they...[/quote]
No. Sometimes they're not. My question to Roobles still goes unanswered, though. Because what I say on this forum not counting for much in the real world, am I to just grin and bear it if someone says something racist on here?
No. Sometimes they're not. My question to Roobles still goes unanswered, though. Because what I say on this forum not counting for much in the real world, am I to just grin and bear it if someone says something racist on here?
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Eric..
David Johnson wrote:
> "It was mainly 1600 - 1800"
>
> Your previous post did not talk about "mainly" or concentrate
> on the high volume times. To remind you....
>
> "our period of activity in the slave trade was relatively brief
> (a couple of centuries or so)"
>
> This is wrong Eric and I pointed it out.
Just had a little trawl for some dates, and found that the first English slave ship sailed in 1562 and that the last slaves were landed in British colonies in 1808 (it didn't say where).
So if we take 1808 as the date of the last British slave ship, that's a total of 246 years.
So in terms of our own (British) involvement I'd say that falls within a *reasonable* definition of "a couple of centuries or so" wouldn't you?
- Eric
> "It was mainly 1600 - 1800"
>
> Your previous post did not talk about "mainly" or concentrate
> on the high volume times. To remind you....
>
> "our period of activity in the slave trade was relatively brief
> (a couple of centuries or so)"
>
> This is wrong Eric and I pointed it out.
Just had a little trawl for some dates, and found that the first English slave ship sailed in 1562 and that the last slaves were landed in British colonies in 1808 (it didn't say where).
So if we take 1808 as the date of the last British slave ship, that's a total of 246 years.
So in terms of our own (British) involvement I'd say that falls within a *reasonable* definition of "a couple of centuries or so" wouldn't you?
- Eric
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Eric..
No. Again I remind you of what you stated
"Slavery was a "profitable business" in Africa at the time of the Egyptians and for centuries before the Europeans even arrived there. On a historical scale, our period of activity in the slave trade was relatively brief (a couple of centuries or so). "
You gave the impression that you are talking about "we", the "Europeans" as opposed to the Egyptians.
"Slavery was a "profitable business" in Africa at the time of the Egyptians and for centuries before the Europeans even arrived there. On a historical scale, our period of activity in the slave trade was relatively brief (a couple of centuries or so). "
You gave the impression that you are talking about "we", the "Europeans" as opposed to the Egyptians.
DJ
>>
Apologies if that wasn't clear and I can see why you might have thought that.
But Kim was going on about "the English and the Dutch" and that was what I was responding to initially before you got involved.
I responded to your bringing up 1450 as the start date by pointing out that there was relatively little transatlantic slave trading up to around 1600 (only about 3% of the total - and by the way that was mainly the Spanish and the Portuguese).
Incidentally, I just had a look into the Dutch involvement and it seems to have started in 1606 and ended in 1791. So that's actually less than 200 years.
Sorry for the mix-up.
- Eric
Apologies if that wasn't clear and I can see why you might have thought that.
But Kim was going on about "the English and the Dutch" and that was what I was responding to initially before you got involved.
I responded to your bringing up 1450 as the start date by pointing out that there was relatively little transatlantic slave trading up to around 1600 (only about 3% of the total - and by the way that was mainly the Spanish and the Portuguese).
Incidentally, I just had a look into the Dutch involvement and it seems to have started in 1606 and ended in 1791. So that's actually less than 200 years.
Sorry for the mix-up.
- Eric