Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "CNN's Don Lemon 'schooled' by UK scholar after demanding King Charles III pay 'reparations'" video.

@canadianjaneoriginal As a historian pointed out to an annoyed US interviewer a week or so ago, the British Empire abolished slavery thirty years before the US did, and didn't need to kill 600,000 of their citizens to do it.
19
You don't consider that Africans were anything other than innocent victims? You believe that slavery was an entirely British phenomenon? The first western ships arrived on the west African coast as explorers/traders. Only the ready supply of slaves made available by tribal leaders and Arab slavers generated the market. Moreover, Arabs and African chieftains had been involved in slavery for at least 1500 years before any westerners arrived. How sad that education has been superseded by indoctrination.
2
Ah, but modern slaves produce the cheap clothes and trainers, as well as the smartphones, which these people covet. Far easier to express indignation about something which ended almost 200 years ago than to do anything about modern slavery.
2
What 'slaving raids?' A typical slaving ship had a crew of 30 to 40. Are you really daft enough to believe that these rampaged across Africa?
1
Nice? He hadn't got a credible response to her facts. Actually, the source of the slave supply has been known for centuries. Short answer, Yes Africans did sell off their own people in exchange for profit, and really didn't care in the slightest what happened to them.
1
You don't consider that African rulers and Arab traders were involved then? Without them, the trade (which pre-dated European involvement by at least 1500 years) would not have been possible.
1
Perhaps you didn't listen, or simply blanked her comments? The slave trade only flourished because African tribal rulers and Arab slavers were eager to profit from it. Indeed, it pre-dated western involvement by at least 1500 years. Latin writers from the time of the Roman Empire sometimes referred to slaves as 'Aurum Arabicum' or Aurum Infelix.' - Arab gold, or wretched gold. The typical slave ship had a crew of 30 - 40. The ships transported trade goods from Britain to Africa, where they were exchanged for either prisoners taken in tribal wars, or members of the excess population. It simply could not have happened without the complicity of African rulers, and the indoctrinated myth that it was entirely the product of vast numbers of evil Britons rampaging across Africa kidnapping innocent and peaceful locals is ludicrous.
1
The lady is entirely accurate in her comments. Without the co-operation of African rulers and Arab traders, the trade would not have been possible. A typical slave ship had a crew of 30 - 40. It arrived with trade goods, which were enthusiastically accepted in exchange for slaves, generally either the excess population, or prisoners from local wars. Moreover, slavery in Africa pre-dated western involvement by at least 1500 years. As the discussion was about British involvement, by the way, how are the excesses of Belgium and Germany relevant? I don't hear any criticism of any other country than Britain.
1
Correct. But be careful about expressing this fact. Since indoctrination replaced education, these programmed people get very angry very easily.
1
Perhaps you don't know, or lack the integrity to admit, that slavery in Africa, and many other places, pre-dated the arrival of Europeans by at least 1500 years?
1
@kanyamajaja2583 You don't actually seem to know any of the facts of the slave trade, or indeed of the history of slavery. Or, possibly, your personal prejudices prevent you from accepting these facts?
1
No, it wasn't. There are around 45 million slaves in the world today. Actually, the historian merely responded, with accurate facts, to a ludicrous comment by a poorly educated reporter.
1
African rulers didn't 'help to keep it going,' they largely created it. They, and Arab slavers, had been heavily involved in slavery for at least 1500 years when the first westerners arrived.
1
@mastere2460 Firstly, the western traders did not enslave anyone. They simply purchased existing slaves from their owners, who were African chiefs of Arab slavers. The Triangular Trade itself only developed because of the easy market made available by co-operative Africans and Arabs. Had they chosen not to co-operate, the trade could not have grown as it did. Sorry if historical facts annoy you, but they are, nevertheless, facts.
1
@mastere2460 It is always fascinating to read the comments of a fantasist who personal prejudice prevents him from accepting the facts of the slave trade, and the important roll that Africans and Arabs played in it. Indeed, the role they had been playing for over 1500 years before westerners arrived, and benefitted from African & Arab greed.
1
Clearly, you don't like the facts about the origins of the slave trade.
1
I blame the Beaker People, who arrived in the British Isles around 4500 years ago, and brought their damned silly pots with them.
1
She wasn't making an argument, she was simply stating facts. Without the enthusiastic co-operation of African rulers and Arab traders, the trade as it evolved would simply not have been possible.
1
@AITrademarket You don't know much about the history of the slave trade, clearly. Perhaps you are unaware that slavery in Africa preceded the arrival of Europeans by at least 1500 years? The typical slave ship had a crew of 30 to 40 men. The slaves were handed over to these crews in exchange for trade goods shipped out from Britain. There was rarely any force involved, because the chieftains and Arab slavers were eager to do deals, and the small crews could not possibly have used force, because if they did the source of the slaves would cease. As for 'strongest and most viable assets,' the slaves were generally excess population, or individuals captured in inter-tribal conflicts. Do you really believe that hoards of evil westerners rampaged across Africa kidnapping noble Africans? Either you are poorly educated, or simply a victim of the current enthusiasm for indoctrination instead of education.
1
Australia became a 'Commonwealth' with control over her government and internal policies in 1901.
1
@baraskparas9559 I had hoped for better, but you clearly aren't educated enough to grasp the way a constitutional monarchy works.
1