Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Anti-racism is a fanatical, and quite possibly false, ideology" video.

@candy-le4nh Aren't you aware that the Transatlantic slave trade was only made possible because Arab slavers and African tribal leaders were enthusiastic supporters? That it would not have been possible had they not made a ready supply of slaves available? Or that, compared to the Portuguese, the British were merely amateurs, or that, where slavery was concerned, the Ottoman Empire were Premier League performers? No, of course you aren't. You would much prefer to impose the morals of the 21st century onto events over 200 years ago.
22
@HistoryDenied When did I say that? Of course the British transported slaves to the New World, just as other European powers did. Like it or not, slavery was an accepted fact in the world at the time. Moreover, the slaves were made easily accessible by tribal leaders and Arab traders. Without such complicity, the trade would not have developed to the extent that it did, however unwilling many people of today are to accept the fact.
4
@mannylikestoanimate The Amritsar Massacre was the result of an officer ignoring his orders. He was immediately replaced, sent back to Britain, condemned in Parliament, and never given command again. The Irish Famine was much more complex than you seem to think, and many better-odd Irishmen were complicit in it. The Partition of India was brought about by Jinnah, who demanded a separate Moslem state, and threatened civil war if it did not happen. The Iraqi Revolution was a rebellion against the League of Nations Mandate given to the British for Mesopotamia. The British sought to restore order. The alternative was to withdraw, and allow anarchy. Boer Concentration camps were certainly a failure by the British administration, but It has been argued that "this was not a deliberately genocidal policy; rather it was the result of a disastrous lack of foresight and rank incompetence on the part of the military". Scottish historian Niall Ferguson has also argued that "Kitchener no more desired the deaths of women and children in the camps than of the wounded Dervishes after Omdurman, or of his own soldiers in the typhoid stricken hospitals of Bloemfontein." Still, I am sure that your indoctrinators will be pleased with you for retaining your programming
1
@HistoryDenied 'How does the participation of other countries in slavery justify or mitigate Britain's central role in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade? A practice it continued despite being outlawed by its contemporaries' Are you really being serious? Like it or not, at the time slavery was the norm. As to the latter half of your comment. The Act of Parliament to abolish the British slave trade was passed on 25 March 1807. The following year, the Royal Navy set up the West Africa Squadron, whose goal was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. The Squadron remained in existence until 1867, by the way. After the 1807 act, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which provided for the abolition of slavery in most parts of the British Empire. It was passed by Earl Grey's reforming administration and expanded the jurisdiction of the Slave Trade Act 1807 and made the purchase or ownership of slaves illegal within the British Empire. Your ignorance of the facts is regrettable, but sadly not unexpected.
1