check_bin_krap Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 What a load of crap, STH. We did that trade. Its your and my country which stuffed as many slaves as we could into ships, brought them over to the US to pocket a profit of those who made it. The loss of human life was calculated. Carefully planned, how much food water etc would be needed vs. deaths. Don't you dare to mention Sudan. You have a history there, its the UK who was in charge there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
check_bin_krap Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 If you bother to read this link, you will see that the Brits have had plenty of opportunities to influence Sudan. Sudan - history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 What a load of crap, STH. We did that trade. Its your and my country which stuffed as many slaves as we could into ships, brought them over to the US to pocket a profit of those who made it. The loss of human life was calculated. Carefully planned, how much food water etc would be needed vs. deaths. Don't you dare to mention Sudan. You have a history there, its the UK who was in charge there. Good point, and another reason I get a tad pissed off when some of the Brits on this board cast aspersions on my convict ancestry. Many of those sentenced to transportation were guilty of little more than stealing bread, and a lot of them didnt even live to see landfall. Those that did were treated like dogs, beaten into submission and forced into hellholes like Port Arthur, in its time the harshest penal insititution in the British empire. Granted, some were eventually granted their freedom and given land, but it was essentially a system of forced servitude designed to meet the needs of the landed gentry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 My father asked my wife who the Viets dislike most, Americans or French (with background of the wars in Viet Nam). The reply was clear - the French -------------------------------------- You need to clarify that. this is a loaded question. Viets definitely should blame the french first for colonializing them, makes sense. but i sense your wife gave a logical histoircal reply. After all the french left in 54, De Gaulle subsequently, constantly warned the US not to get involved thinking they could keep 2 vietnams and win the war manu military. I really doubt, that post-54 history, viets have more to blame the french than the americans. Its your and my country which stuffed as many slaves as we could into ships --------------------------- without the very active collaboration and greed of african kingdoms, the slave trade would not have been possible. European slavers mostly stayed along the coast, and slaves were delivered and sold to them by africans. If you study the history of black slavery, you will see that slaves were coming from deep inside the continent, from places where eurpeans hardly venture into. It was truly a supply and demand trade, not the take-over of african countries to bleed them off their populations by omnipotent europeans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 spirit_of_town_hall said:Sukumvit, I think we in the west forget how civilsed we are. The slave trade is still alive and kicking in the Sudan, indeed that has been the hub since history began. STH i guess there are a few american indians who would disagree with that statement. most of them have a difficult time though disagreeing as they were killed. and i think a few jews would disagree a bit as well. and roma and sinti. and some irish. and a few vietnamese, laotinas and cambodians. and some central and south americans. get the drift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spirit_of_town_hall Posted November 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 Hi CBK,the slave trade was alive and kicking before europe got involved. Read your history books, it has been going on since pre-biblical times. I am very proud to say it was my country that first outlawed it in europe. Basra in Irak was the hub of slavery for the arabs. Throw off your guilt, the people who sold the slaves in africa were africans. STH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spirit_of_town_hall Posted November 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 I disagree- only this week an Irish lady was killed by muslim terrorists. Roma gypsies, why does everybody hate them and its not just because they chose to live in a caravan . South American, the true banana republics, dont local business men in Brazil, Mexico et al pay to have street kids desposed of? I could go on, hard to blame the nasty west for everything, if the west is all so bad why do all those poor oppressed people want to come to Europe and the states? get the drift? STH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 OK - I should manage to get this thread closed with this post, but arent we all being a tad hypocritical here ? I personally chose to believe that the relatively small Farang market in Asia isnt to blame for the trade in women, but can we deny that Thai women arent being shipped across the globe to service markets in Japan, Europe, the US and Oceania ? Call it what you like, but indentured prostitution remains slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 A recent experience in China shows how some Japanese feel about their exploits in the first half of the twentieth century. A large Japanese construction company scheduled a big contract (600+ million USD) signing ceremony for Sept 18. Not realizing the significance of that date, we went along with it until our Chinese partner informed us they would not be coming. Turns out that is the date Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. It is a day of similar significance to the Chinese as Dec 7th is to Americans. Did the Japanese do it on purpose? I don't know, but the Chinese sure thought so. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 ThaiHome said:A recent experience in China shows how some Japanese feel about their exploits in the first half of the twentieth century. A large Japanese construction company scheduled a big contract (600+ million USD) signing ceremony for Sept 18. Not realizing the significance of that date, we went along with it until our Chinese partner informed us they would not be coming. Turns out that is the date Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. It is a day of similar significance to the Chinese as Dec 7th is to Americans. Did the Japanese do it on purpose? I don't know, but the Chinese sure thought so. TH ThaiHome you're reading way too much into this. Can't recall too many Japanese refusing to conduct business with Americans on August 6 (the day Hiroshima was nuked). If every nation had that attitude, global trade would ground to a halt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.