:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: could this get any more problematic? though i wouldn't expect anything less from yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Can't give reparations because they didn't directly suffer slavery, but send them all "back" to Africa where they've never been themselves... makes total sense dunno what you're on about it's perfectly logical to deny one argument for the sake of generational differences and then totally ignore generational differences to suit your own agenda obv
That's not my argument. That's the logic of their argument - they're complaining about their ancestors being taken from Africa (sold to us by their African 'brothers') therefore if they want reparations then the best we can do is to offer to rectify the past and offer one-way tickets to the homeland of their ancestors: rather like the Jewish people in WWII. It was wrong that we took them to Jamaica, therefore that should be rectified if that is what they want... surprisingly though, I can't see many of them taking up the offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by dirrty
How come you didn't pop up when I make this same argument when it comes to the Falklands anyway when I always say that if the Argentinians want the Falklands cleared of British 'colonialists' then that's fine aslong as the rest of South America returns to Spain and Portugal where their ancestors came from 500 years ago? Is it because they are white/European and thus it's not a racist statement when applied to white people? Ain't that strange eh?
The same response to this as above regarding South Amercans/the Falklands. I always make this devil's advocate argument when it comes to the Argentinians wanting the Falklands back, yet i've never had anybody make the point you and dirty have when it comes to the fact they were born there. Again, I wonder why this is? Does it have something to do with skin colour?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
Actually we do take credit for it considering how slavery has been a part of human history and the history of nations since the beginning of time. After all, you lot in India and the subcontinent in general still practice virtual slavery in 2014 with the caste system and child weddings so don't you give me lectures on slavery - go and give your fellow Indian citizens lectures on how treating people with darker skin in a less worthy manner is disgusting and of the lowest order.Quote:
Originally Posted by karter
Britain abolished and stopped slavery hundreds of years ago, India still has to catch up.
We didn't 'steal everything from you' - you don't understand economics in the slightest that a trade doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Trade and economics isn't a fixed pie - it's an expanding pie. India in the early years of British rule to the 1900's did pretty well economically, it was only post-1900 that trade began to slow and India started to fall behind with the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by karter
China is the only comparable case whereby it tried to keep free trade out for a long while and as a result it suffered economically and led to it's own demise at the hands of European powers with a technological advantage. At least India at the hands of colonial rule had modern technology introduced as well as infrastructure whereas China was economically rotting and had been for a few hundred years under the Qing Dynasty.
The Africans (as well as the Arabs) had been standing on oil and diamonds for thousands of years yet had still not even invented the wheel (in the case of southern Africa) yet your making the strange claim here that Africa would be a paradise if only those nasty Europeans hadn't built Empires there? Crazy. The great achievements of civilisations have come from China, the Indian subcontinent, Arabia and more recently Europe. The same cannot be said for Africa by any measure nor South America or North America.Quote:
Originally Posted by karter
Only because India chose to act as an Empire after independence with it's colonial annexations. And in any case, this doesn't excuse your poor economic mismanagement since independence. South Korea was a complete disaster and had been for a few hundred years as the Chinese and Japanese had truly plundered South Korea..... yet South Korea did amazingly well by the 1980's by adopting free market economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by karter
What's held India back is it's socialist economic doctrine - something it can't seem to admit to itself that it's been a complete disaster and it's entirely the fault of India and India alone. Luckily though since the 1990's you appear to be learning - which is good. I'm happy for you.
So you are telling me you would be indifferent to Japanese rule to British rule? Seriously!?Quote:
Originally Posted by karter
---
Britain had done what it had to do by 1945. Millions were dead in the Bengal Famine, they ****** up Northern countryside, handicraft industry had collapsed. Assuming that Japan had invaded the entire subcontinent (logically impossible) then I don't see how it would've been different.Quote:
So you are telling me you would be indifferent to Japanese rule to British rule? Seriously!?
It is so interesting that a country which is entirely dependent on Agriculture, bonded labour exists. Also an interesting thing is that even though Britishers condemn the caste system they did nothing to remove it in the 200 years they were here. The caste system and all other accusations you're using is just an way to drift away from the argument.Quote:
Actually we do take credit for it considering how slavery has been a part of human history and the history of nations since the beginning of time. After all, you lot in India and the subcontinent in general still practice virtual slavery in 2014 with the caste system and child weddings so don't you give me lectures on slavery - go and give your fellow Indian citizens lectures on how treating people with darker skin in a less worthy manner is disgusting and of the lowest order.
Till the 1900s, the British managed to:Quote:
We didn't 'steal everything from you' - you don't understand economics in the slightest that a trade doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Trade and economics isn't a fixed pie - it's an expanding pie. India in the early years of British rule to the 1900's did pretty well economically, it was only post-1900 that trade began to slow and India started to fall behind with the rest of the world.
1. Destroy trade links of India with China and create a monopoly
2. Lead the decline of major ports across the coastline
3. Destroy the handicraft and textile industry
4. Ruin the countryside, literally stealing grains to supply to the army in the war, leading to mass hunger in erstwhile Bengal province
Literally no one has ever said that India's slow growth after independence is the fault of Britishers alone.Quote:
What's held India back is it's socialist economic doctrine - something it can't seem to admit to itself that it's been a complete disaster and it's entirely the fault of India and India alone.
Quote:
The Africans (as well as the Arabs) had been standing on oil and diamonds for thousands of years yet had still not even invented the wheel (in the case of southern Africa) yet your making the strange claim here that Africa would be a paradise if only those nasty Europeans hadn't built Empires there? Crazy. The great achievements of civilisations have come from China, the Indian subcontinent, Arabia and more recently Europe. The same cannot be said for Africa by any measure nor South America or North America.
YET one of the most important civilizations - Egyptian, Swahili and Great Zimbabwe spanning across the continent flourished. Hmm.
Boxing the entire continent and treating all Africans as one primitive unit is problematic enough
What I didn't say anything about the Falklands because I wasn't involved in that discussion and don't agree with Argentina's stance anyway. That doesn't change the fact that you're using heritage arguments both for and against certain things to fit with what you want rather than as an actually logical argument
Also loving the "Africa is one country" type chatter totally ignoring Wagadu, Songhai, Sokoto, Benin, Kush, Carthage, Fatimid, Mamluk, and a whole host of other heavily important historical pre-colonial African kingdoms and federations