How about South Africa?

We fought wars with the Dutch because they would not end slavery. In time that was replaced by Apartheid which had measures to make native people work the land they once owned just for the privlege of living on it.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 21 minutes ago
How about South Africa?

We fought wars with the Dutch because they would not end slavery. In time that was replaced by Apartheid which had measures to make native people work the land they once owned just for the privlege of living on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's nonsense, you fought wars with the Boers (not the Dutch) because you wanted to create a commercial trade route from the Cape to Cairo, and one of the wssential steps was to annex the gold-rich Boer republic of the Transvaal (also with an eye on the Orange Free State).

The first attempt at annexation led to the first Boer War; the second attempt led to the Second Boer War.

The ultimate outcome of all of that was the creation of the Union of South Africa, in which you happily signed away the right of the Black African population in exchange for having a strong ally in the region

UK cant even pay pensioners winter fuel let alone reparations

Many contributors to this thread seem to think that firstly, the point of reparations is to mete out punishment on the citizens of former colonial powers, and secondly, that the only form of reparations is direct financial transfer to the descendants of slaves.

Both of these ideas are embarrassingly basic and false, and T-BAD and Bales are correct: this is not the place for a discussion of what is a highly complex, nuanced and emotive topic which the general public, particularly in the West, is exceedingly poorly educated on.

comment by ai'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 21 minutes ago
How about South Africa?

We fought wars with the Dutch because they would not end slavery. In time that was replaced by Apartheid which had measures to make native people work the land they once owned just for the privlege of living on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's nonsense, you fought wars with the Boers (not the Dutch) because you wanted to create a commercial trade route from the Cape to Cairo, and one of the wssential steps was to annex the gold-rich Boer republic of the Transvaal (also with an eye on the Orange Free State).

The first attempt at annexation led to the first Boer War; the second attempt led to the Second Boer War.

The ultimate outcome of all of that was the creation of the Union of South Africa, in which you happily signed away the right of the Black African population in exchange for having a strong ally in the region
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but the Dutch (Boers as they rebranded themselves) were adamant about maintaining slavery during a time when the Empire was trying to abolish it.

Of course there was a land grab but the big gold deposits in the Transvaal weren’t discovered until long after the Boer Wars were over.

The Boers (farmers) were brutal and there was little sign that Apartheid was over when I visited the NW of SA about 12 years ago, horrible people

Theres only one country in the world who went on a mission to force many other countries to stop slavery, shameful really isnt it.. /s

By the way, Boris, although the British made a lot of noise about their intention of eradicating slavery in Africa, the reality on the ground was very different.

The purported British policy for Africa was commonly referred to as the "Three Cs". Its proclaimed goal was to install Livingston's ideals of Christianity, civilisation and commerce.

Of these three, however, commerce was by far the most important concern for the successive British Liberal and Tory governments of the mid-1800s to early 1900s. Time and again, the other two considerations took a back seat with the sole purpose of dominating trade.

The whole Scramble for Africa was ultimately about the commercial exploitation of the continent, which involved controlling the pre-existing trade routes and establishing new networks. For the British, these were primarily the aforementioned Cape-to-Cairo connection and the connection of the African interior to the navigable tract of the Upper Nile, which also involved connecting the Congo and Nile river basins.

The British initially believed that eradicating the slave trade would weaken the pre-existing commercial links in Africa, which were dominated by the Arab slave traders, but over the years they came to tolerate and work alongside them where British interests came into conflict with the other European nations.

The closure of the slave markets and the apparent abolition of the trade in Zanzibar didn't spell the abolishment of slavery in Zanzibar, which continued to be legal on the plantations. Slavery was not ultimately abolished on the islands until 1909.

The trade itself continued on the continent - both in the lands controlled by the Sultanate of Zanzibar and elsewhere, all across Africa. It was cracked down upon or tolerated by the British as convenient according to their needs during the Scramble for Africa.

The British actually needed the slave trade to continue in Africa because a lot of their trade caravans and military expeditions required the use of thousands of slaves as porters. These were very often provided by one of their 'sworn enemies', a famous Zanzibari slave trader known as Tippu Tip, who eventually died a peaceful death in Zanzibar in 1905.

Slave labour and forced labour were tolerated across British dominions in East, West, and Southern Africa, and local kings engaged in the slave trade were often supported and protected by British treaties, since the alternative was often to see them sign similar treaties with one of the other European powers.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 36 minutes ago

Sorry but the Dutch (Boers as they rebranded themselves) were adamant about maintaining slavery during a time when the Empire was trying to abolish it.

Of course there was a land grab but the big gold deposits in the Transvaal weren’t discovered until long after the Boer Wars were over.

The Boers (farmers) were brutal and there was little sign that Apartheid was over when I visited the NW of SA about 12 years ago, horrible people
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your second paragraph is completely untrue. Gold was discovered in the Transvaal in the mid-1800s and most of the early mines were exploited by British colonists.

In addition, official policy was very different to the politics on the ground, as explained above.

This is very well explained by Thomas Packenham, Earl of Longford, in his extremely through 1300-page The Scramble for Africa.

you just knew a thread like this would take off

sensational stuff

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

How about South Africa?

We fought wars with the Dutch because they would not end slavery.
======
Pahahahaha

The things you read on here sometimes

and T-BAD and Bales are correct: this is not the place for a discussion of what is a highly complex, nuanced and emotive topic which the general public, particularly in the West, is exceedingly poorly educated on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on

comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
Theres only one country in the world who went on a mission to force many other countries to stop slavery, shameful really isnt it.. /s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything they did was for their own nefarious interests. They needed slavery to end for their own capitalistic interests. They never opposed slavery when it was in their interests, they created it and abetted it, but as soon as the game shifts they suddenly turn and become champions of fighting slavery, among other reasons to stop rival empires from walking the same path that they walked, to protect their dominance. It was nothing but politics and cold warfare.

They didn't care about any slaves because if they did they wouldn't have continued slavery, forced labour and exploitation of their colonies. They continued to make excuses and ignore bills of rights which they were signatory to, international conventions, Magna Carta was one of the first in the 13th century, so as to justify their brutal hegemony. They observed the human rights in Europe amongst themselves, but did not offer the same rights to the colonies, arguing they were inferior and therefore not covered by human rights and therefore justified to exploit.

comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
Theres only one country in the world who went on a mission to force many other countries to stop slavery, shameful really isnt it.. /s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything they did was for their own nefarious interests. They needed slavery to end for their own capitalistic interests. They never opposed slavery when it was in their interests, they created it and abetted it, but as soon as the game shifts they suddenly turn and become champions of fighting slavery, among other reasons to stop rival empires from walking the same path that they walked, to protect their dominance. It was nothing but politics and cold warfare.

They didn't care about any slaves because if they did they wouldn't have continued slavery, forced labour and exploitation of their colonies. They continued to make excuses and ignore bills of rights which they were signatory to, international conventions, Magna Carta was one of the first in the 13th century, so as to justify their brutal hegemony. They observed the human rights in Europe amongst themselves, but did not offer the same rights to the colonies, arguing they were inferior and therefore not covered by human rights and therefore justified to exploit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They never opposed slavery when it was in their interests, they created it and abetted



Jesus mamba is there no limits to your bullsheeetery?

The subject of reparations is a fantasy anyway. The major powers don’t even want wealth equality with their own citizens, let alone the rest of the world.

comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

How about South Africa?

We fought wars with the Dutch because they would not end slavery.
======
Pahahahaha

The things you read on here sometimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the 19th century equivalent of the U.S. "crusade" to spread democracy today.

Plus ça change, or whatever it is in Punnese

comment by Joshua The King Of Kings Zirkzee (U10026)
posted 33 minutes ago
The subject of reparations is a fantasy anyway. The major powers don’t even want wealth equality with their own citizens, let alone the rest of the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's relative. Two or three years ago, Germany struck a deal with the Gov't of Namibia to pay something like €1.2bn in foreign aid over 30 years to atone for the Herero-Nama genocide of 1904-08.

Unfortunately the deal was torpedoed because no-one remembered to include to Herero and Nama in the negotiations.


If it had gone through, it would've been a real bargain, rhough. They would easily have made it up in shirt sales.

Someone earlier in the thread, I can't remember who or where, claimed that Britain's wealth didn’t owe to the colonies and mainly came from the Industrial Revolution.

That would make for an interesting discussion.

Germany are an interesting case by Western standards because of the Naaaazis, but even they’ll still be reluctant to give up their wealth as reparations.

comment by ai'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
Someone earlier in the thread, I can't remember who or where, claimed that Britain's wealth didn’t owe to the colonies and mainly came from the Industrial Revolution.

That would make for an interesting discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said that?

comment by Joshua The King Of Kings Zirkzee (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Germany are an interesting case by Western standards because of the Naaaazis, but even they’ll still be reluctant to give up their wealth as reparations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They're an interesring case in many regards. One of the most interesting arguments is that the Naazi atrocities weren't so much an exception but a consequence of the European (and American) settler colonial projects. Ironically, Israel can be seen in the same light.

comment by Joshua The King Of Kings Zirkzee (U10026)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by ai'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
Someone earlier in the thread, I can't remember who or where, claimed that Britain's wealth didn’t owe to the colonies and mainly came from the Industrial Revolution.

That would make for an interesting discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't got the time to sift through the comments right now, but whoever wrote it will know.

Btw, I'm a bit disappointed, Daz. I thought my shirt sales comment was worth at least a passing recognition.

comment by ai'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 18 minutes ago

How about South Africa?

We fought wars with the Dutch because they would not end slavery.
======
Pahahahaha

The things you read on here sometimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the 19th century equivalent of the U.S. "crusade" to spread democracy today.

Plus ça change, or whatever it is in Punnese
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.

comment by Joshua The King Of Kings Zirkzee (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
The subject of reparations is a fantasy anyway. The major powers don’t even want wealth equality with their own citizens, let alone the rest of the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by Mamba - You hit us, We hit you. (U1282)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
Theres only one country in the world who went on a mission to force many other countries to stop slavery, shameful really isnt it.. /s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything they did was for their own nefarious interests. They needed slavery to end for their own capitalistic interests. They never opposed slavery when it was in their interests, they created it and abetted it, but as soon as the game shifts they suddenly turn and become champions of fighting slavery, among other reasons to stop rival empires from walking the same path that they walked, to protect their dominance. It was nothing but politics and cold warfare.

They didn't care about any slaves because if they did they wouldn't have continued slavery, forced labour and exploitation of their colonies. They continued to make excuses and ignore bills of rights which they were signatory to, international conventions, Magna Carta was one of the first in the 13th century, so as to justify their brutal hegemony. They observed the human rights in Europe amongst themselves, but did not offer the same rights to the colonies, arguing they were inferior and therefore not covered by human rights and therefore justified to exploit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They never opposed slavery when it was in their interests, they created it and abetted



Jesus mamba is there no limits to your bullsheeetery?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No there isn't.