quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

No. There were never more than a couple of hundred men in the Free Corps for the whole of WW2, and most of those were from the British isles rather than the colonies.
Perhaps you're thinking of all those American Vietnam era POWs who made propaganda broadcasts for Ho Chi Minh?

Ho Chi Minh, hmmm? Now there's a name from the past. Wasn't he the guy who was democratically elected President at some point after the Vichy French who collaborated with the Axis fled Vietnam post WWII?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You seem quite proud of finding sophomoric ways to defend these atrocities... you know, the classic denier bag of tricks I predicted a couple of posts ago?

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

No. There were never more than a couple of hundred men in the Free Corps for the whole of WW2, and most of those were from the British isles rather than the colonies.
Perhaps you're thinking of all those American Vietnam era POWs who made propaganda broadcasts for Ho Chi Minh?

Ho Chi Minh, hmmm? Now there's a name from the past. Wasn't he the guy who was democratically elected President at some point after the Vichy French who collaborated with the Axis fled Vietnam post WWII?

And wasn't that in the same free democratic nation that England sent troops to occupy (1945) so that France could have their old colony back in the same manner that England would later try in Kenya, etc?

One more time, do the math. A thousand years of the Empire raping the planet isn't going to be swept under the rug by pointing fingers elsewhere, and playing these coy denier games.

The British Empire didn't exist a thousand years ago.
Your "math" appears even more faulty than usual in this case.

Pointing out that your claiming atrocities that happened over seven hundred years before the British Empire came into being is ludicrous hyperbole is hardly sophomoric denial.
That could be far more handily applied to you suggesting the existence of schrodinger atrocities that you can't be bothered to name, in fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

quote:

"None of you ever seem to come back with any actual facts when challenged."

Except that of course, the actual facts have been thoroughly documented, photographed, verified, etc. The millions of deaths did occur. They were carried out by loyal servants of the Crown, in order to swell the coffers even more. The current refusal to even discuss returning stolen national treasures is all over the media.

And this has been been posted here, and the sources linked to.

Ignoring the atrocities and then making sure that we all know that the classic gloating denier game is being played with a 'Nod, nod, wink, wink' of 'no actual facts', speaks for itself. Business as usual indeed.

quote:

What the denier rhetoric does is confirm that the elitism and xenophobia constantly displayed by several of the posters here against any and all victim's decendants/ 'former colonials', is far from a rarity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

No Brit I have talked to is very proud of their colonial past.

seems to me this isnt about tha brits celebrating the empire but getting pissed when reminded of tha past.

seems tha famous british restraint has also gone tha way of the empire.

Plenty of restraint from me..... Blame the TOS.

None of you ever seem to come back with any actual facts when challenged.

"holocaust denier"

Please melt down again. The last trantrum was fun to watch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

nope talking bout hitlers popularity today. he's an icon.

plus didnt a lotta indian pows switch to tha japs & germans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

As for India, judging from what can be seen of their views, there are likely few there that think any better of English colonialism then we do of the Spanish conquistadores.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

As for India, judging from what can be seen of their views, there are likely few there that think any better of English colonialism then we do of the Spanish conquistadores.

That would explain why some one and a half million Indians chose to live here, and why India remains in the commonwealth.

Its because they hate us so much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

I follow Napoleon's wise advice and don't interfere when my opponent is doing my work for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The 10-15 million deaths caused by your English slave transportation wasn't enough of a world class atrocity to please you? It certainly topped the claim of 7 million Jews killed by the Germans or Pol Pots efforts as I claimed earlier. Never mind the hideous death toll on English plantations across the Americas.

Keep on defending England's past, you undo the work of any ten English who wish to move forward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The 10-15 million deaths caused by your English slave transportation wasn't enough of a world class atrocity to please you? It certainly topped the claim of 7 million Jews killed by the Germans or Pol Pots efforts as I claimed earlier. Never mind the hideous death toll on English plantations across the Americas.

Keep on defending England's past, you undo the work of any ten English who wish to move forward.

Don't get me wrong, the British involvement in the Slave trade is shameful, but I'm pretty sure that your figures are a load of bullshit.

I've seen figures of between 10 and 15 million for the total movement of slaves, but the highest figure I can find for the UK is 4m.

Could you cite a source?

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The 10-15 million deaths caused by your English slave transportation wasn't enough of a world class atrocity to please you? It certainly topped the claim of 7 million Jews killed by the Germans or Pol Pots efforts as I claimed earlier. Never mind the hideous death toll on English plantations across the Americas.

Keep on defending England's past, you undo the work of any ten English who wish to move forward.

Don't get me wrong, the British involvement in the Slave trade is shameful, but I'm pretty sure that your figures are a load of bullshit.

I've seen figures of between 10 and 15 million for the total movement of slaves, but the highest figure I can find for the UK is 4m.

Could you cite a source?

Thanks!

quote:

Some quick answers scholars given over the years:

Philip Curtin, 1969, The Atlantic slave trade: A census

· conservative figure of about 9 million



Joseph E. Inikori, 1976, “Measuring the Atlantic slave trade”:

· 15 million



Patrick Manning, 1998, W.E.B. DuBois Institute Data Set of Slaving Voyages.

· 12 million transported with 10.5 million arriving alive in the Americas



More radical critiques extend beyond the number of people taken from African coasts in slave ships, e.g.:

· start with a number, e.g. 11 million

· then estimate (very roughly!) that for each person who ‘arrived alive’, between 2 and 5 others died

o in the sea passage,

o in holding-prisons on the African coast,

o or in the process of capture and transport from the interior to the coast

· giving a range of deaths due to the slave trade of anywhere between

o 22 million

o and 55 million,

· not to forget the numbers who dued in the ‘seasoning period’ after arrival in the New World.

[These estimates, references and comments were partly gleaned from discussion on H-CARIBBEAN in 2001. As I am not a historian of slavery, I have taken the various words of several well-known historians and put them together here for us to think about.]



But how did people arrive at these counts? How can they differ from each other so much? Isn’t there bias behind any estimate? And most of all, why should an outsider to this debate accept one estimate rather than another?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The figures you have for the Atlantic slave trade include those transported by all nations.

I'm pretty sure your figures are way out.

Again, I don't think it damages your argument too much - Britain has a shitty past. But, claiming 10-15 deaths caused by the UK isn't supportable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The figures you have for the Atlantic slave trade include those transported by all nations.

I'm pretty sure your figures are way out.

Again, I don't think it damages your argument too much - Britain has a shitty past. But, claiming 10-15 deaths caused by the UK isn't supportable.

So as the English are admitted to controlling about half the total slave trade numerically during it's course would you think it fair to think them as being responsible for a similar proportion of the deaths?