That's kind of how a debate works. I oppose your opinion because I don't believe it's founded on fact and am willing to provide evidence in order to do so. If you don't want to have a debate or discussion then don't bother until you're ready.
What, by resorting to juvenile behaviour? Everybody know that without the so-called slave trade europeans would still be living in dire poverty. That is the first lesson you learn in the school of life. - - - Updated - - - Let me ask you a question. Have you every contributed positively (in favour of Afrikans) to a discussion about Afrika in antiquity?
Excuse me? Go on point it out, quote the juvenile phrases. Wouldn't of thought so. Yes. I've mentioned that Africa has had it's own kingdoms, international trade and civilizations in general to people who seemed to believe that they reside solely in mud huts for 2,000 years and never saw the sea. Obviously that's not exact wording but that was my message in general. I should also point out that I reported people for racist and offensive statements on the this forum.
He is a typical loon. He attacks people for not beleiving his nonsense then has a whine because people aren't treating him like an adult. He straightforwardly lied about the effect of congolese rubber. Any Idea what this odd spelling of Africa is about?
All things considered, I was being fair with him. And yes I agree with your assessment. No idea what the odd spelling was about, maybe it was a way of provoking certain readers. To be honest I've stopped asking for reasons for things such as this. But still this is the 'marvel' of the information age; even an ape can let the world know what their thoughts are. God I hate the internet.
Its there for all to see. Maybe its not you being juvenile and maybe you are a teen, if so my apologies.
Also, in case you didnt know, the person you are now allied with in your beliefs is a notorious political forum white racist.
You have still failed to answer my question and in comparison to your behaviour, I've been very tolerant. 24 if you really must know. I'm not allied with anybody. As I've stated on previous topics "I don't make friends on the internet" And I've not seen anything from Sab that suggests that he's a white supremacist.
Probably because I am not a white supremacist. I'm a liberal and would like to see the end of all racial distinctions. Jonah is ,however some sort of loony black nationalist.
the slave trade went global at that time like it never had before, it did produce enormous profits which funded the growth of industrial revolution... a quick web search confirmed the first rubber plantations were in India but yes well after the start of the IR
ya you're right don't have the moral standing of let's say mid 20th century central europeans who would never go on murderous rampages ....when it comes to murderous rampages europeans are experts, they've learned to do it on an industrial scale...
I'll contest that. The industrial revolution took off in the early 1800's. Now I know some people are going to counter that but bear with me. By roughly 1800 most goods were still being produced by hand in the long established practice of the cottage industry and yes there were manufatories based in the south east and I'm sure there's a few other places. But they only produced a fraction of Britain's total production. and it only kicked off when the invention and widespread use of the power loom did the revolution actually take place. For example: Leeds which is next door to me was a town of around 20,000 people by 1810-15 I forget which but that quickly ballooned as factories sprung up and encouraged people to move for work. And of course the north is where the majority of Britain's factories were during this period. Now before all that, the slave trade had been banned and the 13 colonies had seceded and on top of that sugar prices had started to fall which meant that demand for slaves in Caribbean had decreased even before the slave trading act had been enacted. In fact most of the Empire was not making a profit and was very much the case in India until the 1830's and it was a similar situation in the newly seized Cape colony and Australia which represented the bulk of the empire after India and the Caribbean. Come to think of it the only place that was making money was Singapore between 1800 and 1830.
It didn't go 'global' it extended its reach across the atlantic where previously it was mainly from East Africa to Arabia and from Europe to the Muslim world generally. Muslim Pirates were taking slaves from English villagers will into the 18th century. The IR was not funded by the slave trade. Certainly some slave trade money would have been invested in the IR, but the vast majority came from landed money and non slavery funded trade. The First Rubber plantations were in Brazil, well before india.
Slave-owning planters, and merchants who dealt in slaves and slave produce, were among the richest people in 18th-century Britain. Profits from these activities helped to endow All Souls College, Oxford, with a splendid library, to build a score of banks, including Barclays, and to finance the experiments of James Watt, inventor of the first really efficient steam engine. Liverpool merchant bankers, heavily involved in the slave-based trades, extended vital credit to the early cotton manufacturers of its Lancashire hinterland. West Indian planters built stately homes - some, ridiculously extravagant dwellings such as William Beckford's Fonthill - and furthered the modernisation of British agriculture by 'improving' their estates. Others invested in canals. And, of course, many spent their ill-gotten gains on gambling, prize fights and riotous living. The plantations were themselves by-products of a new economic system. Plantation slavery thrived thanks to a consumer revolution that took place in Britain and the Netherlands in the 17th century. In these countries, consumer markets widened as farmers and manufacturers hired wage workers as the best way to expand output and sales. The fact that farmers had to pay rent, and that labourers needed a job if they were to feed their families, was the germ of a new economic system - what we now call capitalism. British capitalism was a cause rather than consequence of slave plantation development. But the fit between slave plantation growth and industrial advance in Britain was to be impressive and sustained. The plantation colonies supplied the mother country with a growing stream of popular luxuries - dyestuffs, sugar, tobacco, then later coffee and chocolate as well - and cotton, a crucial industrial input. The availability of such treats drew consumers into greater participation in market exchanges and greater reliance on wages, salaries and fees. Baiting the hook of wage dependence, new consumer goods helped to motivate what some historians call the 'industrious revolution', the longer hours and tight labour control associated with industrialism. The slave plantations themselves anticipated the intense organisation of labour, with coerced slave gangs working under the eye and whip of the slave driver. On all slave plantations hours of work were very long, but on the sugar estates the mills were kept going 24-hours-a -day, with enslaved people working at night as well, in 18-hour shifts. The slave plantation colonies of the Americas not only supplied premium commodities, but were a captive market for metal tools, textiles and provisions. Indeed, the British empire of the early and mid-18th century became a zone of thriving trade in which the ability of New England and Newfoundland to sell provisions to the West Indies, and to participate in the Africa trade, also boosted their ability to buy English manufactures. The boom in Atlantic produce also underpinned a huge programme of commercial ship-building and maintenance, with about a third of the English mercantile fleet being built in the North American colonies. www.bbc.co.uk/History/British
Informative London University lecture about the history of England from the beginnings of the 'Industrial revolution' in 1800 and it's role in the Trans atlantic so-called trade, for anyone genuinely interested in History, contemporary or otherwise. [video=youtube;igr3ybicGP4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igr3ybicGP4[/video]
The lecture is about a couple upper class figures who had a strong connection to slavery. There is quite literally nothing to suggest or even imply that slavery was responsible for the industrial revolution. Also the BBC link on post no.68 no longer exists.
The slavers in Europe had been 'doing business' 200 years prior to 1800, the proposed date of the IR. The first banks were owned by slaveowners, these same banks funded industrialization, period. Its estimated that there were over 1,000 slave owners in england alone.
The Slave so-called Trade generated so much income for the Town, and its merchants, Liverpool actively encouraged and invested heavily in this traffic in human life and misery. The first ships set sail from liverpool in 1700, to west afrika in search of humans to put into bondage. And Im a big LFC fan!
A book about how the rise of capitalism in england was due to the enslavement of over 10 million so- called Afrikans, by Dr, John Henrick Clarke, a widely respected professor in Afrikan and European studies. His wisdom is widely acknowledged in the so-called afrikan - american community.
