Jamaicans lead Caribbean calls for Britain to pay slavery reparations

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...parations.html

Jamaicans lead Caribbean calls for Britain to pay slavery reparations

Caribbean slave descendants, some of whose ancestors worked for David Cameron's distant family, are calling for an apology and billions of pounds in reparations

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...y_2823530c.jpg
Sugar cane cutters, Jamaica, 1891 (Photo: ALAMY)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telegraph

From his bungalow on the side of a hill in western Jamaica, Willie Thompson surveys the same lush valley that one of his great-great-grandmothers was forced to harvest for sugar cane more than 180 years ago.

“I am an African descendant,” he said, whippet-thin and grizzled at the age of 78. “She came here with the chains on her feet, on a slave trade ship”.

Mr Thompson knows that when Parliament voted in 1833 to abolish slavery in Britain’s colonies, Earl Grey’s government was made to pay out compensation worth almost £2 billion in today’s money.

And after an exhausting day spent scratching out a living by farming yams, he wonders what might have been if Nana Bracket and her comrades, rather than the ancestor of David Cameron who owned them, had received £4,101 of it - the equivalent of £415,000 today.

“The English made a lot of money back then. A lot of money,” he said, with a sigh almost long enough to reach Dudley, West Mids, where he worked as a labourer in the 1960s before returning home. “I think it is fair for we to get a bit of compensation for what all our people been through.

A coalition of 14 Caribbean states, including Jamaica, agrees with Mr Thompson, and is now mounting the first united campaign for reparations from Britain over its role in the Atlantic slave trade.

Represented by CARICOM, the regional organisation, the group is prepared to sue in the courts. It has hired Leigh Day, the London law firm that last year won £20 million for Kenyans tortured by the British during the Mau Mau rebellion of the 1950s.

This month it will unveil a list of 10 demands for Britain, France and Holland, including funds likely to total billions, an apology, and assurances slavery will never be repeated, The Telegraph can disclose.

Click the link to read more..

---

Another failed tinpot country that has only gone backwards since independence from Britain now gets it begging bowl out in an attempt to blame their ills on somebody else when their failure of the last 60 years has been down to them and them alone. If you want any evidence for this, just look at the attitudes of the former colonies - the success stories of Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaya and a few others don't sit there and moan about the past as they went and made a success of independence themselves.

But there's a few questions here we need to ask:

- Why aren't they seeking reparations from their 'African brothers' who were the ones who went into the jungles, captured the opposing tribes members and then sold them at the coastal ports to the British, French and Dutch?

- Why aren't they thanking Britain for ending slavery eventually across the globe which was pretty impressive considering how slavery had been a part of human history from the beginning until that point when the Europeans abolished it?

In any case, if this is to be paid then I have a few suggestions of my own. Turkey will have to pay billions to Eastern European countries as well as North and East Africa as under the Ottoman Empire operated a slavery system there for hundreds of years. The South American nations will have to pay billions towards the Indian tribes for displacing them and sacking the Aztec and Incan Empires. Iran will have to pay billions to India for the Mughal domination of that sub-continent. India will have to pay out to the Sikhs and Portugal for their mistreatment and illegal annexations - as well as to darker Indians who are treated like slaves. The Zulus will have to pay billions for displacing the tribes there in southern Africa long before the British and Dutch arrived. The Italians and the Vatican will have to pay out to Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and many other countries for the Roman Empire. The Germans will have to pay out for the damage they inflicted on the Romans over hundreds of years with the Germanic tribes. The Mongolians will have to pay out to Russia, China, India, Central Asia, Arabia and Eastern Europe for the ills and wreckage of the Mongolian Empire. The French will have to pay out to the British for the invasion of 1066. I would also like reparations to Britain for all the schools, hospitals, bridges, railways, roads, government buildings, streets, cities, towns, common law, standing army, defence, religion and science that we provided to large portions of Africa/the Indian subcontinent and East Asia. And on and on and on and on and on...

Thoughts? What should be our response to their constant begging and needy attitude?

My response? Go and do one! Here are some of the best-rated article comments..

Quote:

---

Nobody wants to talk about that aspect. The only reparation blacks should be offered is a one way ticket back to Africa...This is a shake down for cash pure and simple. These people were born on beautiful Caribbean Islands who never knew slavery or have even known a slave. They should count themselves lucky they weren't born in Africa. Constant civil wars and poverty...They should be thanking Briton they were born where they were. Sick of their crap...

---

Quote:

---

And slavery is still alive and well in Africa , from boy soldiers in the African bush to Islamic marriage practices. We need no lecturing from professional victims working the Race industry to further fleece us.

---

Quote:

---

Couldn't agree more. Tell them if slavery is so bad and that its effects linger 400 years later, maybe they should do something to stop BLACKS enslaving people TODAY. But nope all we hear is silence.

Also England left Jamaica with an educated people, developed lands and transportation structure in place when they left and the black people who ran the county into the ground thereafter should be the ones being sued.

Lastly, how did these race baiters come up with 4 trillion in unfunded wages from 3 million slaves? Was the minimum wage 25 million an hour 400 years ago?

---

Quote:

---

When I read stories such as this I am always left asking the same question. Who exactly do they want to pay the compensation?.
During the time of slavery the average British citizen didn't even have the right to vote. The average worker was worked to death in the pits and mills and died at the average age of 42 in Britain in the late 18th and 19th century.

The poverty commonplace amongst the uneducated masses of Britain during that period was every bit as tough to survive as the slave workers forced labour was to endure in the Americas.

With that as the background, I ask again who specifically do these slave descendants think should pay for their current life of hardship in what is one of the most blessed and beautiful areas of the world?.

Maybe the slave descendents would like to be repatriated to West Africa?

---

*goes in the comments section*

Blah Blah....slavery still exists...we built schools and hospital for ourselves which they got unfortunately....other garbage..........aid.......I'm a shameless racist....Britain ended slavery....I'm an idiot who's rolling in his own ****

Quote:

---

Couldn't agree more. Tell them if slavery is so bad and that its effects linger 400 years later, maybe they should do something to stop BLACKS enslaving people TODAY. But nope all we hear is silence.

---

This is such a simplistic, misinformed comment and also a lie. First of all slavery in the British West Indies was abolished in 1834. 1834 + 400 = 2234. There's still a good 220 years before you can endorse this fact with such confidence.

Britain continues to excuse itself from every ****** thing it did by saying "Slavery still exists" and "these countries can only complain"
They don't give a **** about slavery in Africa or Asia or whatever, if they did, they would accept that colonialism and imperialism shaped British colonies for the worse and the fact that third world countries cannot magically lift themselves out of poverty.
Jamaicans are only demanding what was theirs, which was shamelessly stolen from them by a country whose entire existence depended on thefts and invasions.

Quote:

---

Iran will have to pay billions to India for the Mughal domination of that sub-continent.

---

Quote:

---

---

...Except the fact that the first Mughal Ruler (and hence his descendants) were of Turkish origin, not Persian. You know that Mughal Empire was restricted to South Asia and not Persia...right??

Quote:

---

India will have to pay out to the Sikhs

---

??
??
I'm lost here..what....why would India 'pay out' to the Sikhs? They were never invaded or brutalized and they were the ones who chose to stay with India when most of their native land of Punjab went to Pakistan....their weak separatist movement does not exist anymore. Sikhs are one of the most privileged communities in India. Indian Punjab is the richest and one of the most developed. They've benefited the most.

Quote:

---

I would also like reparations to Britain for all the schools, hospitals, bridges, railways, roads, government buildings, streets, cities, towns, common law, standing army, defence, religion and science that we provided to large portions of Africa/the Indian subcontinent and East Asia

---

Reparations for building like 5 schools won't be much dear.

Anyhoo, the fact that you built a few schools and towns for your benefit does not detract from the fact that the British Empire was founded on genocides and oppression. BUT DON'T BLAME US!!! we killed people and blew up homes, enslaved the native people and covered up for our unscrupulous deeds !!

If you think their failures since independence can be summarised swiftly in that little paragraph you've wrote then you are naive at best. There are FAR too many variables which affect the success of a nation. If you want to look further into this topic (not Jamaica exclusively but the differing factors in a countries success) then I suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel. But to think colonisation or slavery had no play whatsoever in the states of those current countries then you are clearly not as knowledgeable as you are trying to appear.

I'm not saying we should pay reparations or anything of the sort, but saying the success of a nation is purely down to the inhabitants over the last 60 years is stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

This is such a simplistic, misinformed comment and also a lie. First of all slavery in the British West Indies was abolished in 1834. 1834 + 400 = 2234. There's still a good 220 years before you can endorse this fact with such confidence.

--

Reparations for building like 5 schools won't be much dear.

---

Do these two statements not contradict each other? I'm pretty sure we have built more than 5 schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

*goes in the comments section*

Blah Blah....slavery still exists...we built schools and hospital for ourselves which they got unfortunately....other garbage..........aid.......I'm a shameless racist....Britain ended slavery....I'm an idiot who's rolling in his own ****

This is such a simplistic, misinformed comment and also a lie. First of all slavery in the British West Indies was abolished in 1834. 1834 + 400 = 2234. There's still a good 220 years before you can endorse this fact with such confidence.

Britain continues to excuse itself from every ****** thing it did by saying "Slavery still exists" and "these countries can only complain"
They don't give a **** about slavery in Africa or Asia or whatever, if they did, they would accept that colonialism and imperialism shaped British colonies for the worse and the fact that third world countries cannot magically lift themselves out of poverty.

---

Er yes they can. Singapore and Hong Kong for example have no resources yet have some amazingly well for themselves. Japan was destroyed after the war and lifted itself out of poverty. South Korea was a colony of Japan that truly was exploited - yet it lifted itself out of poverty via capitalism instead of getting it's begging bowl out like most of the African countries which are still begging off the west 60 years later.

China is the same - instead of lowering itself to begging, it stopped feeling sorry for itself and introduced western style capitalism. India has been the same since the 1990s although still has a lot of self pity to deal with, as exemplified by you.

Quote:

---

Jamaicans are only demanding what was theirs, which was shamelessly stolen from them by a country whose entire existence depended on thefts and invasions.

---

Then Britain should pay for one-way tickets for them to all return to Africa.

We didn't steal jack from Jamaica - if it wasn't for us, Jamaica wouldn't exist and Jamaicans wouldn't be living there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

...Except the fact that the first Mughal Ruler (and hence his descendants) were of Turkish origin, not Persian. You know that Mughal Empire was restricted to South Asia and not Persia...right??

---

Sure, Turkey can pay reparations for all of south asia then. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And Britain can get it's begging bowl out to Norway/Sweden/Denmark for the Vikings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

I'm lost here..what....why would India 'pay out' to the Sikhs? They were never invaded or brutalized and they were the ones who chose to stay with India when most of their native land of Punjab went to Pakistan....their weak separatist movement does not exist anymore. Sikhs are one of the most privileged communities in India. Indian Punjab is the richest and one of the most developed. They've benefited the most.

---

The Sihks have prospered despite being part of India. India has been one of the most dysfunctional countries since independence, with the population becoming poorer since the end of British rule - something that has only just begun to change since India has started introducing the free market in the early 1990's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

Reparations for building like 5 schools won't be much dear.

Anyhoo, the fact that you built a few schools and towns for your benefit does not detract from the fact that the British Empire was founded on genocides and oppression. BUT DON'T BLAME US!!! we killed people and blew up homes, enslaved the native people and covered up for our unscrupulous deeds !!

---

A few schools and hospitals for the population is better than what they had before where the normal people of those countries were treated as virtual slaves, had no rights and had no proper functioning country - instead being the property of feudal kingdoms. As Peter Hitchens has said before - in this world you either have an Empire or you belong to somebody elses. Out of all the Empires in world history, one of the best to belong to (if you had the choice) would be the British and other European Empires.

After all, had it not been for the British - you'd probably be speaking Japanese right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

If you think their failures since independence can be summarised swiftly in that little paragraph you've wrote then you are naive at best. There are FAR too many variables which affect the success of a nation. If you want to look further into this topic (not Jamaica exclusively but the differing factors in a countries success) then I suggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel. But to think colonisation or slavery had no play whatsoever in the states of those current countries then you are clearly not as knowledgeable as you are trying to appear.

I'm not saying we should pay reparations or anything of the sort, but saying the success of a nation is purely down to the inhabitants over the last 60 years is stupid.

---

There are a lot of myths surrounding colonialism and it's impacts, as Friedman explains. The video is like watching karter vs somebody who knows what they are talking about and doesn't scream waycist every ten minutes -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY

And plus, I never said Britain was completely fault free. I have said on here before that a lot of problems have arisen out of poorly drawn borders. However, it has now been 60 years since independence and they should have sorted it out themselves by now. The same for all the others countries such as former Rhodesia (run by those evil white man), South Africa, India and a few others who have made a mess of everything since independence.

So my point is - China/HK/Singapore/Malaya/South Korea don't sit there feeling sorry for themselves blaming their ills on everybody but themselves. It's time Jamaica and most of Africa followed them rather than India/Burma/South Africa/Rhodesia.

The problem is we'll never know what Jamaica would be like now if we had not invaded. You're saying that without us they'd still be savages, which is just imperialism and there's no way of knowing for sure. In fact, isn't the fact we invaded and used slave labour to get their financially lucrative sugar canes (later bananas) proof that they'd have been able to grow an economy if they had been traded with rather than conquered.

Despite that, I don't think we should pay anything. It's in the past now and a line needs to be drawn between history and the present and work on making sure the present time is peaceful and collaborative rather than exploitative and bloody. That'll be the true lasting legacy of imperialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

The problem is we'll never know what Jamaica would be like now if we had not invaded. You're saying that without us they'd still be savages, which is just imperialism and there's no way of knowing for sure. In fact, isn't the fact we invaded and used slave labour to get their financially lucrative sugar canes (later bananas) proof that they'd have been able to grow an economy if they had been traded with rather than conquered.

---

Well if we're talking about Africa, i'm pretty sure how they would be today - considering that most of Africa still hadn't invented the wheel by the start of the imperial period (from what I have read) I am pretty sure they'd still be tribes living on the grasslands/jungle just as the tribes in South America are. Then again, you could argue that the complete mess they've made of independence it would have been better if we'd have just left them as that rather than hand them technology which they've used to kill one another as opposed to build anything of any value.

It's very sad, but that's the reality of it and it's a shame for the people of these countries. All cultures ain't equal.

Seems a bit odd for them to start acting like this. They earned their independence in the 1960s, correct? It seems like they're 50 years too late to be making these statements and demands. If it was in the 80s then maybe but this seems far too late and they're blaming their modern day troubles on past concerns. They lack a clear argument :/

Quote:

---

A few schools and hospitals for the population is better than what they had before where the normal people of those countries were treated as virtual slaves, had no rights and had no proper functioning country - instead being the property of feudal kingdoms. As Peter Hitchens has said before - in this world you either have an Empire or you belong to somebody elses. Out of all the Empires in world history, one of the best to belong to (if you had the choice) would be the British and other European Empires.

---

You're talking about 16th-17th century when slavery existed all over the world, it was not ~exclusive~ to the Indian subcontinent and the British didn't do much about it either. Instead they imposed harsh agricultural laws leading to mass starvation and famines leading to deaths of millions. One of the best empires yep..
Before you credit the Empire for abolishing slavery, it was not meant to happen in the first place so you don't get applauded for that

Quote:

---

China is the same - instead of lowering itself to begging, it stopped feeling sorry for itself and introduced western style capitalism. India has been the same since the 1990s although still has a lot of self pity to deal with, as exemplified by you.

---

India's not dealing with self pity. Acknowledging the murderers of millions and an empire which clearly stole everything from us isn't self pity (which we don't do enough honestly) . Rejecting the generous aid from UK is not self pity.

Quote:

---

Then Britain should pay for one-way tickets for them to all return to Africa.

We didn't steal jack from Jamaica - if it wasn't for us, Jamaica wouldn't exist and Jamaicans wouldn't be living there.

---

You don't know what their life would've been like in Africa either. Contrary to popular belief, Africa isn't a wasteland and your country still managed to steal a lot from many African countries. Stealing from 'beggars' how shameless

Quote:

---

India and a few others who have made a mess of everything since independence.

---

Because newly Independent India had to fight 4 wars within 18 years of Independence, it had to deal with illiteracy, hunger and disease and also had to deal with making new institutions and a fully functional government. All this isn't easy for a country which was a union of hundreds of princely states. Stop equating Singapore and Hong Kong with India

Quote:

---

After all, had it not been for the British - you'd probably be speaking Japanese right now.

---

Again, did yourself a favour and not Indians, English...Japanese...what's the difference. British Empire deserves to be **** on.

Oh is Dan still claiming that Britain ended slavery despite all the evidence that it just followed suit from others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Then Britain should pay for one-way tickets for them to all return to Africa.

We didn't steal jack from Jamaica - if it wasn't for us, Jamaica wouldn't exist and Jamaicans wouldn't be living there.

---

: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.

http://i.imgur.com/UnX4QaP.gif

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirrty

: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.

http://i.imgur.com/UnX4QaP.gif

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

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

---

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 karter

You're talking about 16th-17th century when slavery existed all over the world, it was not ~exclusive~ to the Indian subcontinent and the British didn't do much about it either. Instead they imposed harsh agricultural laws leading to mass starvation and famines leading to deaths of millions. One of the best empires yep..
Before you credit the Empire for abolishing slavery, it was not meant to happen in the first place so you don't get applauded for that

---

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.

Britain abolished and stopped slavery hundreds of years ago, India still has to catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

India's not dealing with self pity. Acknowledging the murderers of millions and an empire which clearly stole everything from us isn't self pity (which we don't do enough honestly) . Rejecting the generous aid from UK is not self pity.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

You don't know what their life would've been like in Africa either. Contrary to popular belief, Africa isn't a wasteland and your country still managed to steal a lot from many African countries. Stealing from 'beggars' how shameless

---

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

Because newly Independent India had to fight 4 wars within 18 years of Independence, it had to deal with illiteracy, hunger and disease and also had to deal with making new institutions and a fully functional government. All this isn't easy for a country which was a union of hundreds of princely states. Stop equating Singapore and Hong Kong with India

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karter

Again, did yourself a favour and not Indians, English...Japanese...what's the difference. British Empire deserves to be **** on.

---

So you are telling me you would be indifferent to Japanese rule to British rule? Seriously!?

---

Quote:

---

So you are telling me you would be indifferent to Japanese rule to British rule? Seriously!?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Till the 1900s, the British managed to:

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

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.

---

Literally no one has ever said that India's slow growth after independence is the fault of Britishers 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