Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "" video.

@HistoryDenied Wasn't it lucky for them, then, that large numbers of Africans were readily available, and were delivered to the ships by African chieftains and Arab traders, who had been profiting from the business for centuries?
16
@HistoryDenied I didn't suggest that it did. However, are you trying to argue that, when slavery was widespread at the time, the English/British should have refrained from the practise? It was, and to a degree still is, endemic in Africa. Moreover, compared to the Ottoman Empire and Portugal, the British were mere amateurs. They were, however, among the first to condemn and abolish it. Alas, you are naively trying to impose 21st century values on people from an earlier time. Would you, for example, condemn Marcus Aurelius for not introducing Old Age Pensions into the Roman Empire?
14
@gipgap4 The West Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy intercepted slave ships between 1808 & 1867.
10
@HistoryDenied 'British imperialism brought civilisation?!' The fact is that that is a credible argument. Would, for example, Australia have been better off had the aboriginal inhabitants remained at a mesolithic level of development, with a life expectancy of 40 if they were lucky? Or India if she had remained a network of warring Princely States, instead of becoming the largest democracy on earth, and benefitting from western medicine, civil administration, legal systems, transport networks, etc? Oh, and In 1783, an anti-slavery movement began in Britain. That year a group of Quakers founded their first abolitionist organisation. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the campaign. By 1833, it had been abolished throughout the British Empire. You seem to have profound difficulty in accepting than any nation other than Britain was ever involved in the practice, and still less ability to accept that Britain led the field in abolition.
3
@HistoryDenied My argument is simply that it is futile to attempt to impose 21st century beliefs on people from the 17th to 19th centuries. You seem unable to accept the fact that slavery & the slave trade was not unique to England/Britain.
2
@HistoryDenied Never mind irony. What about relevance. The subsidies applied to Roman citizens, but not to those who were not citizens, by the way.
2
@HistoryDenied You might as well go forward in time and write 'People in the 21st century knew that eating meat was wrong, but did it anyway.' Again, your need to impose you own values on people from the past lacks any credibility. 'Congratulations on unwittingly rubbishing such claims.' Did I? When & where?
2
@HistoryDenied Where did I state that? The nearest comment on my part is 'You seem unable to accept the fact that slavery & the slave trade was not unique to England/Britain.' Show me one of your replies to me which makes a single critical reference to any state other than Britain.
1
@HistoryDenied Well, the Indus civilization, the earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent. appear to date from be about 2500 B.C. By the time the British & French arrived, not much progress towards them seems to have been made, compared to the progress made during around 250 years of the British presence. Incidentally, average life expectancy in India in 1800 was 25.4 years. Population in 1800 was 169 million. By contrast, average life expectancy in India in 1900 was 35.0 years. Population in 1950 was 357 million. So, as a result of being exploited by the British, more than twice as many Indians as in 1800 were able to live, on average, ten years longer.
1
@andrewhall7176 I suspect you are correct. I have been trying to give him honest, accurate, and factually correct answers, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that he cares for none of these things. I have encountered such people before, and concluded that the wisest solution is to ignore them. Which I intend to do in his case from now on.
1