Thank goodness

[robs1]

With that statement, are you implying that the slave trade was actually beneficial to the Africans transported and their future offspring!

It was in no way beneficial to the slaves but their descendants enjoy IN GENERAL a much better life than MOST Africans do today, yet it many within those descendants that want financial recompense for their ancestors suffering.

 

[Exfarmer]

The EIC only traded, if you can call it that, the with the total blessing of the British government. The best way I could describe the EIC is as land based privateers. They regally made use of the Royal navy and the army to supplement their own considerable military forces and were often finically underwritten by the government. Because just like today, with some corporate leviathans they were to big to fail.

You should remember that until very recently, UK law unlike Napoleonic ( yes I know you are an Englishman ) allowed anybody to do anything which was not illegal.
The bigger picture, was that we did not want the wicked despicable French to gain a toehold.
Again as I said before I do not want to defend the actions of these people , but it was another time, when Britain was really concerned about its security and those papists across the channel.
It was in so many ways a terrible regime intent on enriching them selves, but when you have seen how the Mughals acted I think the peasants actually welcomed there new overlords.

 

[beardface]

There are plenty wealthy men alive today, who owe their wealth, power and influence to the empire.
There are millions alive today, who owe their poverty to past empires. To have an empire means to forcibly transfer wealth from one nation to another. It laves a permanent legacy.

Bit like Germany swallowing up the wealth of poorer EU nations then......

 

[robs1]

I wonder if there has ever been a balance sheet done of the money we took from these poor countries against the foreign aid we have given out over the years.

 

[ollie989898]

Bit like Germany swallowing up the wealth of poorer EU nations then......

Or borking them with an over-valued currency whilst they have an under-valued currency and are free to export all over the world without penalty...

 

[wanton dwarf]

I wonder if she is actually aware of the crimes and exploitation the Empire carried out in her own country, but may be she doesn't like to associate herself with her origins.

That makes as much sense as me blaming everyone around me for WW1, WW2 and all the other wars.

You can only blame the people that DID those actions at the time - persecuting others for someone elses crimes is insane.

 

[wanton dwarf]

If there hadn’t been an empire, the IRA would never have come into being in the first instance.
If there hadn’t been an empire, there wouldn’t be any NI Protocol today. Empires create permanent legacies. Legacies that come back to haunt.

If there hadn't been an empire then we'd all be speaking another language .. probably German or French.

 

[wanton dwarf]

There are plenty wealthy men alive today, who owe their wealth, power and influence to the empire.
There are millions alive today, who owe their poverty to past empires. To have an empire means to forcibly transfer wealth from one nation to another. It laves a permanent legacy.

No mention of Russia, China, Germany .. you know the 100s of millions killed and the wealth gained by the few.

You're a one sided record.

Look Ireland lost, as did Scotland and many countries throughout the world to the British Empire. That's a fact and that's all it is. If you want a rerun of the wars you must be completely and utterly insane.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I wonder if there has ever been a balance sheet done of the money we took from these poor countries against the foreign aid we have given out over the years.

The UK general public didn't benefit from the Empire.

However the general public were made to pay not only for foreign aid but also buying slaves from those that benefitted from slavery - such as the Royal Family.

Only recently was that debt paid off by the tax payer.

 

[robs1]

The UK general public didn't benefit from the Empire.

However the general public were made to pay not only for foreign aid but also buying slaves from those that benefitted from slavery - such as the Royal Family.

Only recently was that debt paid off by the tax payer.

Very hard to tell, obviously some got very rich, but others benefited from the trade it brought and they spent their money which caused more employment, guess being in the army/navy gave people jobs( not always voluntary ones) not so good if they died fighting though . I think we should learn from history but accept it was a different era and not expect us to be guilty for someing that happened a couple hundred years ago

 

[arcobob]

With that statement, are you implying that the slave trade was actually beneficial to the Africans transported and their future offspring!

It was a question, not a statement and you have not answered it.

 

[Muck Spreader]

If there hadn't been an empire then we'd all be speaking another language .. probably German or French.

You speak it already 60% of the English language comes from French and German.

 

[Muck Spreader]

It was a question, not a statement and you have not answered it.

It was in no way beneficial to the slaves but their descendants enjoy IN GENERAL a much better life than MOST Africans do today, yet it many within those descendants that want financial recompense for their ancestors suffering.

It's an interesting angle and we as middleclass white men am probably not entitled or even able to try and answer it. Especially as we have also benefited directly or indirectly from the proceeds of slavery. Tens of millions of people were relocated to the Americas over the last 250 years, but only Africans were taken as slaves. Subsequently, their descendants have generally made up the majority of the poor and always have been discriminated against. So, it may be difficult to say if they have prospered from this multi generational abuse and discrimination over the fate of their African cousins, as ultimately being poor can be a very relative state.

 

[Agrivator]

Despite everyone going off on a tangent, I started this thread because Priti is the first senior politician who has had the courage to point out that the ''BLM campaign'' and ''taking the knee'' have both added to racial tension.

Who were the people behind all this, and what were their motives?

 

[Raider112]

Despite everyone going off on a tangent, I started this thread because Priti is the first senior politician who has had the courage to point out that the ''BLM campaign'' and ''taking the knee'' have both added to racial tension.

Who were the people behind all this, and what were their motives?

It was a relevant subject so it needs to get back on track, I think it's done more harm to racial equality than anything else over the last 30 years but that could well have been the intention.
A lot of extremists are behind the BLM movement but they stay in the shadows, getting the gullible to do the dirty work.
It's certainly gone on too long at sports grounds, if crowds were allowed in the tensions would be even worse but at last clubs are saying enough is enough, Brentford have said they will no longer be doing it, they are all just going through the motions now anyway.

 

[Ncap]

Please don’t do that! I choked on my coffee when I read your words ‘racial equality’
Doesn’t actually exist here

 

[Henarar]

Please don’t do that! I choked on my coffee when I read your words ‘racial equality’
Doesn’t actually exist here

Where?

 

[Muck Spreader]

You should remember that until very recently, UK law unlike Napoleonic ( yes I know you are an Englishman ) allowed anybody to do anything which was not illegal.
The bigger picture, was that we did not want the wicked despicable French to gain a toehold.
Again as I said before I do not want to defend the actions of these people , but it was another time, when Britain was really concerned about its security and those papists across the channel.
It was in so many ways a terrible regime intent on enriching them selves, but when you have seen how the Mughals acted I think the peasants actually welcomed there new overlords.

IMO the French were put out the India game relatively early, with the Dutch East India company always being the slightly more serious threat. The French, generally mercenaries seemed find a role as suppliers of modern weapons and training in western military tactics to any Mughal prince with plenty of money who fancied their chances against the EIC. The English nervous about French intentions, often had spies at French ports to watch for fleets that could be preparing for an invasion of India.

 

[Lowland1]

I wonder if she is actually aware of the crimes and exploitation the Empire carried out in her own country, but may be she doesn't like to associate herself with her origins.

My wifes family left India for Kenya in the 1890's they are spread all over the world in the UK, the US, Australia and other places ask them what they think of the Empire and they will tell you no matter how bad the British were without them they'd still be stuck in India with a billion others fighting to get ahead. The British Empire was a thing of its' time and what has come after it throughout the world hasn't been much better. Living in Africa we see it is very much an Animal Farm type of thing. Nobody treats an African worse than another African.

 

[Pasty]

Yeah. We've always been terrified about the French. LOL