Comments by "Django" (@django3422) on "St.Vincent and the Grenadines PM calls on Sunak to support slavery reparations and apologies" video.

@christ4200 Britain didn't abolish slavery. They stopped partaking in the slave trade, though any people already enslaved were kept that way. So the nation continued to reap the profits of slave labour throughout the Empire.
2
 @graveperil2169 Did you have to pay the slaves?
1
@Nw10expat A fact always omitted by small minded racists like Grave Peril here.
1
@graveperil2169 So even your fetid mind can see that it was unpaid labour then.
1
@TheAArmstrong You've got a poor understanding of the abolition of slavery. Britain had very little to do with it, they stopped participating in the slave trade but they still kept slaves, particularly in the colonies. Continued profiting off their labour for quite some time.
1
I'm troubled by your framing of "the strong conquering the weak". Its not about strength, its about cruelty. Its about who's more willing to commit evil acts, to make deals they have no intention of keeping.
1
Concentration camps were a Portuguese idea, in that they were devised by a single Portuguese general. The British Empire absolutely took that idea and ran with it but I think it's dishonest to try and frame a discussion with historical inaccuracies. In a world increasingly dominated by lies and propaganda, "alternative facts", we need to ensure we're being truthful.
1
No-one knows who "started" slavery and when. Almost certainly predates Judaism by a long, long, looong time though. And no, your comment about "most if not all" slave traders involved in the Atlantic trade were Jewish. Pack it in with the lazy antisemitism.
1
Sargon is a dishonest manipulator who presents an extremely cropped view of historical fact.
1
Rome doesn't exist anymore. "The Vikings" weren't a thing in the sense you're implying, it's a blanket term given to raiders from Northern Europe. The Spanish invasion failed miserably, never set foot on British soil. Its not even slightly relevant to this discussion. Germany DID pay for the wars. Whereas the British monarchy, the same line we had during the Empire, have directly benefitted from the pillaging and enslaving of these people. That's the difference.
1
@edmundprice5276 That's an important difference. The only people who profited from the Barbary slave trade were the slave traders. That's part of why these countries are poor. But the whole UK benefitted from the slave trade. At the time, not so much. But a large reason why the UK, US etc are so wealthy compared to African nations is because we took a lot of their labourers and natural resources. Its easy to get rich when you don't have to pay your workers.
1
@edmundprice5276 You could say that, it'd be deeply disingenuous as colonisation of Africa wasn't limited to the Barbary States AND the fact that European powers were already well underway with their own slave trade. Can't really cry about the exportation of people as slaves when you're responsible for doing exactly that. Nothing else you've said really holds any relevance. It's either out-of-context tidbits that add nothing or its just you giving your own twisted perception and calling it "history". I can think of a few books I wouldn't be surprised to find on your shelf..
1
 @MR-po8su Who has told you that you are a baddie?
1