YN
Posts: 699
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml 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? No, I think that would be way too simplistic, besides, I think there are pretty accurate records, so it would be a matter of research. Like I say.... it's a shameful part of the UK's history but... Actually there are not very accurate records, slaves were often smuggled by both the English and others, to avoid taxes, or in places they were not taxed simply landed and sold, the academics seriously investigating the matter often make such notes while attempting to estimate the totals. For example Jamaica (who taxed each slave upon import)was claimed to have a slave population at a certain time of about 300,000 and the life expectancy was said to be about 4 years for a plantation slave, yet the records only record a fraction of the necessary numbers of replacements being landed. The records of Brasil were destroyed during the revolutions, the numbers know to have been landed there can only be calculated from secondary sources. The records of many provinces of the Spanish Americas are also in similar disarray with other facts, there are census accounts that show easily double the slave numbers that the import numbers claim, as in the case of Columbia.
|