RE: UK apology for India massacre? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 11:31:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

far as i know tha normans assimilated into engerland after a century r two & tha state basically turned to being english again atta some point with the plantagents




WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 11:38:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenixpower
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
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. [8|]

lol, maybe that's why I heard during my 7 years in the UK quite often "but your lot started the war!!!" (not a topic I ever started, but it came often out of nowhere[8|])...[;)]

tha english are better coz they possess tha magical power of ironicalism, sumfin dat only grows there in blighty. [X(]




jlf1961 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 12:34:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

far as i know tha normans assimilated into engerland after a century r two & tha state basically turned to being english again atta some point with the plantagents



But the British or English aren't true Britains. With the exception of those who are primarily of Celtic ancestry, the rest are an assimilation genetic deposits consisting of Normans, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Norse, and every other culture or race that invaded Britannia after the Romans left.

They have 1630 years of racial cross breeding compare to the US of having only about 413 years of crossbreeding, so that kind of makes us less prone to cultural insanity than the British... I mean think of it, only an insane culture could come up with Toad in the Hole, Steak and Kidney Pudding, Black Pudding, the spice girls, just to name a few off the top of my head.




YN -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 12:42:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


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.


10 - 15 million........ Seems to me you pluck figures from thin air.

And if you ever paid attention, You would see I have already said the slave trade was abhorent.


If you want we can use the top end of the range as your English atrocity score. That is of course for a death toll of 30-35 million dead slaves out of a maximum death count of over 60 million for all the players.. I would not want you to feel shorted, or that any cheated England on your due credits.

However most the academics think this is way past reality.




jlf1961 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 1:05:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


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.


10 - 15 million........ Seems to me you pluck figures from thin air.

And if you ever paid attention, You would see I have already said the slave trade was abhorent.


If you want we can use the top end of the range as your English atrocity score. That is of course for a death toll of 30-35 million dead slaves out of a maximum death count of over 60 million for all the players.. I would not want you to feel shorted, or that any cheated England on your due credits.

However most the academics think this is way past reality.



First I am a southern born American, and my ancestors from the mountains of North Carolina did not own slaves. Hell if you did not live in any of the towns along the Buncombe Turnpike, no one owned slaves. My ancestors lived in the Big Laural, Little Laural and Walnut section of Madison county, on the paternal grandfather's line, and on my paternal grand mother's line, they were Cherokee from Hot Springs and the western part of Madison County.

And my mother's side of the family are abolitionists from Pennsylvania.

Of course none of my Cherokee ancestors were wealthy enough to own slaves.

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.




YN -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 1:36:26 PM)

There is a consortium of academics attempting to produce a model of the total slave trade, and as I noted earlier, trying to produce a figure for the total slave trade and it's casualty count is being done by modeling, and trying to match tax, census and other records with the known death tolls and the death percentages of each step in this trade, offsetting it by the likely or recorded slave reproduction rates for the number of known female slaves . Trying to accurately figure the German death toll which occurred in living memory was difficult, and that is simple next to the things happening and the anarchy in the Americas several hundred years ago.

Remember, the several million slaves in North America are claimed to be only about 5% of the total distributed, and it is generally agreed that at least one African died for each one successfully shipped, broken and on the plantation, though most think the proper range is 2-5 deaths per slave.

At any rate it is like calculating the number of cattle or hogs in the America s during the last five centuries, no number is likely to be perfect, but that is how African slaves were treated and viewed at the times.

As I noted if the English feel shorted by the conservation estimates being calculated, perhaps the top end of the scale is more to their liking.

And the Africans are not the first I think the Cherokee or their neighbors were the first slaves the English used and this only stopped after a war with the Indians convinced them it was good for their health to cease the practice, during the early 1700s.

quote:

Historians have estimated that tens of thousands of Native Americans were enslaved. It is estimated that Carolina traders operating out of Charles Town shipped an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Native American captives between 1670 and 1715 in a profitable slave trade with the Caribbean, Spanish Hispaniola, and Northern colonies. Because it was more profitable to have Native American slaves, whites in the Northern colonies sometimes preferred Native American slaves, especially Native women and children, to Africans. Prior to 1720, when it ended the Native American slave trade, Carolina exported as many or more Native American slaves than it imported Africans. The usual exchange rate of captive Native Americans for enslaved Africans during this time period was two or three Native Americans to one African. In the Southwest, Spanish colonists and Native Americans sold or traded slaves at many of the trade fairs along the Rio Grande.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States




Politesub53 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 4:32:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.


You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.




Politesub53 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 4:37:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

If you want we can use the top end of the range as your English atrocity score. That is of course for a death toll of 30-35 million dead slaves out of a maximum death count of over 60 million for all the players.. I would not want you to feel shorted, or that any cheated England on your due credits.

However most the academics think this is way past reality.


First you indicated you have no proof of the figures, now you are suggesting we were able to move 35 million people on transatlantic ships.

Logistics not your strong point then, well that and the truth.




YN -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:03:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.


You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.



Actually not, at least in Central or South America -

The Carribs had slaves, and so did some groups in Brasil. Otherwise not, even the Aztecs did not have slavery, brutal as they were in other respects, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

But aren't you a bit confused as to which continents the "US" is located on?




Politesub53 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:13:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

far as i know tha normans assimilated into engerland after a century r two & tha state basically turned to being english again atta some point with the plantagents



But the British or English aren't true Britains. With the exception of those who are primarily of Celtic ancestry, the rest are an assimilation genetic deposits consisting of Normans, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Norse, and every other culture or race that invaded Britannia after the Romans left.

They have 1630 years of racial cross breeding compare to the US of having only about 413 years of crossbreeding, so that kind of makes us less prone to cultural insanity than the British... I mean think of it, only an insane culture could come up with Toad in the Hole, Steak and Kidney Pudding, Black Pudding, the spice girls, just to name a few off the top of my head.



Now look here chaps, I hate to be the one to tell you but all of you dont have a fucking clue. Nothing new there but I digress.

The first King as Athelstan, Grandson of the Saxon King Arthur. Athelstan unified all the English Kings at the Battle of Brunanburh. But getting back to the early Celts, they were native to here since the Iron Age and called Brythonic. The Romans called them Britons. the Brythonic language was the first on all these Isles and whats now Gaelic wasnt the original Gaelic. Just as whats now English isnt the same as Old English.

These things evolve through history, but not having much of it, I can understand the confussion across the pond.




Politesub53 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:22:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.


You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.



Actually not, at least in Central or South America -

The Carribs had slaves, and so did some groups in Brasil. Otherwise not, even the Aztecs did not have slavery, brutal as they were in other respects, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

But aren't you a bit confused as to which continents the "US" is located on?



You need to fact check yet again. It was slaves, captured in war, that built the Temples.




Powergamz1 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:22:46 PM)

So your new game for denying the atrocities is to repeat what I already posted about William the Conqueror (1066) and the Plantagenets (Henry Curtmantle), and claim that I 'conveniently forgot' to post what anyone can scroll back and see that I posted?

And spare me the red herring about internecine squabbling.

Whether you keep up the denier games or not, the world outside that rock has been victimized by their imperialism, and the death and theft toll goes back a thousand years. Semantic game playing isn't going to change that.

I've provided links to back up my assertions... where are yours? Missing again?

I'll take my research from *real* sources, not invisible ones, thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

First the kingdom of England came into existence in 927AD, after a gathering of kings (note the plural) at Edmont Bridge. This meeting effectively united all the kingdoms on the Island under one rule.

Of course, you conveniently forgot about William the Conqueror's invasion, and the conquest of Wales by Edward I, who was a Norman king.

England's move toward empire building could be traced to the Plantagenet Kings during the Hundred Years war, but they only wanted France, something to do with various royal marriages between the two royal families, but that is more of a line of succession disagreement than an actual attempt at empire building.

Now before you use the phrase, "read a book" I suggest you do some fucking research. My personal library is mostly history texts covering the period from Ancient Greece to the modern era, and they are the sources I used for all my college papers and master's degree work.

And even using the date you plucked out of the air, it still does not add up to a thousand years.





Politesub53 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:24:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.


You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.



Actually not, at least in Central or South America -

The Carribs had slaves, and so did some groups in Brasil. Otherwise not, even the Aztecs did not have slavery, brutal as they were in other respects, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

But aren't you a bit confused as to which continents the "US" is located on?


I meant slavery was rife in both North and south America before Europeans got there, but you knew that anyway.




YN -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:40:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Now, as for slaves for menial labor, abhorrent practice. The slave trade was a black mark on Anglo-European history.


You do know slavery was rife in the US before the Europeans got there. In both North and South America.



Actually not, at least in Central or South America -

The Carribs had slaves, and so did some groups in Brasil. Otherwise not, even the Aztecs did not have slavery, brutal as they were in other respects, the Maya and the Inca certainly did not.

But aren't you a bit confused as to which continents the "US" is located on?


I meant slavery was rife in both North and south America before Europeans got there, but you knew that anyway.


Actually I don't know anything like that.

Besides those few tribes in Brazil, and the Carribs, name any in Central or South America that kept slaves, let alone chattel slaves. As noted the three civilizations existing at the time the European savages first got off their ships did not keep slaves.

And as confused as certain of your earlier posts have been, who can know (besides possibly yourself) what you meant?






Politesub53 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:42:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The real news is that Cameron appears to be returning to London with little to show after announcing any contrition the English might feel for crimes committed in India would not extend to the great diamond's return.

An Indian view of relations with the English, and Cameron's visit -

A reality check for David Cameron's India quest - Bhaskar Menon explains why for India it cannot be business as usual with the British.




Did you actually read this drivel before you posted it. I only just decided to give it a go, since I guessed the content.

You do know the author is the same record company owner, who wanted to profit from the worlds first rock concert to raise money for victims of disasters (Bangladesh 1971)




YN -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 5:59:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

The real news is that Cameron appears to be returning to London with little to show after announcing any contrition the English might feel for crimes committed in India would not extend to the great diamond's return.

An Indian view of relations with the English, and Cameron's visit -

A reality check for David Cameron's India quest - Bhaskar Menon explains why for India it cannot be business as usual with the British.




Did you actually read this drivel before you posted it. I only just decided to give it a go, since I guessed the content.

You do know the author is the same record company owner, who wanted to profit from the worlds first rock concert to raise money for victims of disasters (Bangladesh 1971)


Do you have another Indian who you think better represents Indian views of the "special relationship" your man Cameron claims India has with England?

quote:

British Prime Minister David Cameron began his three-day visit to India by invoking the "huge ties" between the two countries of "history, language, culture and business."

One wonders which particular aspect of the shared history of the two nations he found supportive of his current quest for broadened economic linkages.

Could it be what the East India Company did after bribing its way to control of Bengal, the richest province of Mughal India? Within a decade of the so-called "Battle of Plassey" (Pilashi) in 1757, Bengal lay in ruins. The destruction of its economy was so severe a third of the population, some five million people, died of starvation in the first of the great "man-made famines". British rule spread across India. A conservative estimate of the overall toll of such famines is 100 million.



or

quote:

Or perhaps Cameron found inspiring the theft of the fabled Kohinoor diamond after the British defeated the Sikhs almost a century later. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's 11-year old grandson went with the diamond to Britain where it became part of the "crown jewels" and he was comprehensively debauched with drugs and sex to disable his potential as a leader.

Or maybe the prime minister is enthralled by the post-1857 "pacification" that involved the indiscriminate slaughter of some 10 million civilians, men, women and children.

Cameron's historic admission that the 1919 Jallianwalla Bagh massacre was "deeply shameful" does not begin to address the long line of British atrocities in India, most of which remain officially unacknowledged. They are systematically ignored or downplayed even in works of history by British scholars supposedly engaged in the pursuit of truth.


I think he nicely covers the "special relationship" India has with England. He also mentions other known English accomplishments in India and around the world.





WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 6:10:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Now look here chaps, I hate to be the one to tell you but all of you dont have a fucking clue. Nothing new there but I digress.

The first King as Athelstan, Grandson of the Saxon King Arthur. Athelstan unified all the English Kings at the Battle of Brunanburh. But getting back to the early Celts, they were native to here since the Iron Age and called Brythonic. The Romans called them Britons. the Brythonic language was the first on all these Isles and whats now Gaelic wasnt the original Gaelic. Just as whats now English isnt the same as Old English.

These things evolve through history, but not having much of it, I can understand the confussion across the pond.

quit your jibber jabba, was only talking bout tha normans coming later. [>:]




Powergamz1 -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 6:13:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


Do you have another Indian who you think better represents Indian views of the "special relationship" your man Cameron claims India has with England?


Can't you see that the opinions of worthy oriental gentlemen on how it feels to be a worthy oriental gentleman (or 'former colonial'), can't be taken seriously unless approved by former colonial masters?
Or at least unless the worthy oriental gentleman's opinion is expressed by a good worthy oriental gentlemen?

It simply isn't done... next thing you know they will be wanting to move needlessly about.
[;)]




YN -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 6:18:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN


Do you have another Indian who you think better represents Indian views of the "special relationship" your man Cameron claims India has with England?


Can't you see that the opinions of worthy oriental gentlemen on how it feels to be a worthy oriental gentleman (or 'former colonial'), can't be taken seriously unless approved by former colonial masters?
Or at least unless the worthy oriental gentleman's opinion is expressed by a good worthy oriental gentlemen?

It simply isn't done... next thing you know they will be wanting to move needlessly about.
[;)]


Yes, especially when "record company executives" address him with such insolence.

Bhaskar Menon - journalist, author, mystic, former UN staffer, dog lover, bicyclist,




WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: UK apology for India massacre? (2/23/2013 6:42:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
But the British or English aren't true Britains. With the exception of those who are primarily of Celtic ancestry, the rest are an assimilation genetic deposits consisting of Normans, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Norse, and every other culture or race that invaded Britannia after the Romans left.

They have 1630 years of racial cross breeding compare to the US of having only about 413 years of crossbreeding, so that kind of makes us less prone to cultural insanity than the British... I mean think of it, only an insane culture could come up with Toad in the Hole, Steak and Kidney Pudding, Black Pudding, the spice girls, just to name a few off the top of my head.

probably coerrect but if ya pushed tha point then there are probably no true anybodies anymore. seems most folks are just a mish mash, some more mish & others more mash.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125