Idiots who equate colonisation with nazism.

[Dexter]

Actually I do, they are cry-baby just as the Arabs that blam their stupidety in the Colonialism. And again, it's very nice that the British educated the "Primitves", but on what price ? Tens of millions of people.

Who?

Name these Carribeans.

Britain did NOT kill millions. They had no need to. Britain ruled by siding with one or several tribes/local chiefs/native kings against the rest. Divide & conquer.

Besides, how many are alive today because of Britain's gifts to the natives.

You also ignore the large numbers that died in cyclical famines, plagues and tribal wars BEFORE Britain got there.

Some crazy extream leftists and most Arabs and Muslim Blacks.

British did kill millions, I already prooved that.

And you can't compare the killing of Colonialism with Guns to the one with sticks  There is no way anyone could sloughter millions with sticks and stones. Give me numbers of the "large numbers that died in cyclical famines, plagues and tribal wars BEFORE Britain got there", or you just GUESS there were big numbers of people that died in there because of wars befor Britain got in there.

[newman]

Actually I do, they are cry-baby just as the Arabs that blam their stupidety in the Colonialism. And again, it's very nice that the British educated the "Primitves", but on what price ? Tens of millions of people.

Who?

Name these Carribeans.

Britain did NOT kill millions. They had no need to. Britain ruled by siding with one or several tribes/local chiefs/native kings against the rest. Divide & conquer.

Besides, how many are alive today because of Britain's gifts to the natives.

You also ignore the large numbers that died in cyclical famines, plagues and tribal wars BEFORE Britain got there.

Some crazy extream leftists and most Arabs and Muslim Blacks.

British did kill millions, I already prooved that.

And you can't compare the killing of Colonialism with Guns to the one with sticks  There is no way anyone could sloughter millions with sticks and stones. Give me numbers of the "large numbers that died in cyclical famines, plagues and tribal wars BEFORE Britain got there", or you just GUESS there were big numbers of people that died in there because of wars befor Britain got in there.

The guns of the europeans were single shot muzzle loaders that could fire only 4 rounds per minute! They were less effective than bows & arrows!

You've yet to prove your  claim that the British killed 'millions'. Leftist rantings are not proof!

Anthropologists KNOW that africans and Indians killed each other regularly from studying remains in mass graves.

[Dexter]

Because Europeans killed the Africans and Natives mostly because of slavery and wars, and no, Arrows are not more effective than guns, and not were.

I already prooved thet Europeans sloughterd millions, it's not my problem you deny it because you claim it's leftist site, not my problem you have Cognitive dissonance with high level of deniel using excuses. It's just like the stupid pathetic Nazis claim that History sites about the Holocaust are not relieble because Jews opened it and because Zionists control the world (!).

Bring sources that prooves that "millions of millions" of Africans were sloughtered.

[newman]

Because Europeans killed the Africans and Natives mostly because of slavery and wars, and no, Arrows are not more effective than guns, and not were.

I already prooved thet Europeans sloughterd millions, it's not my problem you deny it because you claim it's leftist site, not my problem you have Cognitive dissonance with high level of deniel using excuses. It's just like the stupid pathetic Nazis claim that History sites about the Holocaust are not relieble because Jews opened it and because Zionists control the world (!).

Bring sources that prooves that "millions of millions" of Africans were sloughtered.

Do you know how many men Britain would have needed to kill millions of people with muzzle loaders? They hardly had that many!

Britain had a large navy, NEVER a large army?

Where is your proof that Britain shot millions?

[Dexter]

Because Europeans killed the Africans and Natives mostly because of slavery and wars, and no, Arrows are not more effective than guns, and not were.

I already prooved thet Europeans sloughterd millions, it's not my problem you deny it because you claim it's leftist site, not my problem you have Cognitive dissonance with high level of deniel using excuses. It's just like the stupid pathetic Nazis claim that History sites about the Holocaust are not relieble because Jews opened it and because Zionists control the world (!).

Bring sources that prooves that "millions of millions" of Africans were sloughtered.

Do you know how many men Britain would have needed to kill millions of people with muzzle loaders? They hardly had that many!

Britain had a large navy, NEVER a large army?

Where is your proof that Britain shot millions?

Are you aware the fact that Spain won the Aztec Kingdom, that had thousend of soliders, with a small militia ? Britain didn't killed the African and the Indians all by war but mainly by slavery.

Britain did had a large army, that's why they were empire and won Frence and Spain on the race for the colonisation of the New World and Africa.

And, again:
The British were really good at keeping records and from available mortality and population statistics it is possible to make an estimate of “avoidable mortality” (technically, excess mortality) during and after British rule in India. Avoidable mortality (excess mortality) is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected in a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics. The avoidable mortality totalled about 0.6 billion (1757-1837 i.e. from the British conquest of Bengal to the accession of Queen Victoria), 0.5 billion (1837-1901 i.e. during the reign of Queen Victoria) and 0.4 billion (1901-1947 i.e. from the death of Queen Victoria until independence). By way of comparison, the Indian post-independence avoidable mortality has totalled about 0.4 billion (but one must realize that the Indian population grew enormously post-independence from about 0.35 billion to the present 1.1 billion). The 1.5 billion Indian Holocaust under the British is the greatest catastrophe and greatest crime in human history – and has of course been largely deleted from British historiography.

[newman]

Because Europeans killed the Africans and Natives mostly because of slavery and wars, and no, Arrows are not more effective than guns, and not were.

I already prooved thet Europeans sloughterd millions, it's not my problem you deny it because you claim it's leftist site, not my problem you have Cognitive dissonance with high level of deniel using excuses. It's just like the stupid pathetic Nazis claim that History sites about the Holocaust are not relieble because Jews opened it and because Zionists control the world (!).

Bring sources that prooves that "millions of millions" of Africans were sloughtered.

Do you know how many men Britain would have needed to kill millions of people with muzzle loaders? They hardly had that many!

Britain had a large navy, NEVER a large army?

Where is your proof that Britain shot millions?

Are you aware the fact that Spain won the Aztec Kingdom, that had thousend of soliders, with a small militia ? Britain didn't killed the African and the Indians all by war but mainly by slavery.

Britain did had a large army, that's why they were empire and won Frence and Spain on the race for the colonisation of the New World and Africa.

And, again:
The British were really good at keeping records and from available mortality and population statistics it is possible to make an estimate of avoidable mortality” “(technically, excess mortality) during and after British rule in India. Avoidable mortality (excess mortality) is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected in a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics. The avoidable mortality totalled about 0.6 billion (1757-1837 i.e. from the British conquest of Bengal to the accession of Queen Victoria), 0.5 billion (1837-1901 i.e. during the reign of Queen Victoria) and 0.4 billion (1901-1947 i.e. from the death of Queen Victoria until independence). By way of comparison, the Indian post-independence avoidable mortality has totalled about 0.4 billion (but one must realize that the Indian population grew enormously post-independence from about 0.35 billion to the present 1.1 billion). The 1.5 billion Indian Holocaust under the British is the greatest catastrophe and greatest crime in human history – and has of course been largely deleted from British historiography.

Britain NEVER had a large army!

It's supremacy over Spain was naval supremacy.

It's land victories against Napoleon required the help of Prussians and others.

As for "avoidable mortality"!

PURE SPECULATION and AMBIGUITY!!

The fact that they have no statistics, dates, names of regiments and don't mention massacres or mass killings should tell you it's BS.

More Australians died in the 50s under Menzies than died in the 70s und the Socialist Whitlam. But that's because of improvements in medicine, NOT who was in power.

[newman]

BTW,

How many slaves did Britain take?

How many died?

Quote some real numbers.

[Dexter]

Because Europeans killed the Africans and Natives mostly because of slavery and wars, and no, Arrows are not more effective than guns, and not were.

I already prooved thet Europeans sloughterd millions, it's not my problem you deny it because you claim it's leftist site, not my problem you have Cognitive dissonance with high level of deniel using excuses. It's just like the stupid pathetic Nazis claim that History sites about the Holocaust are not relieble because Jews opened it and because Zionists control the world (!).

Bring sources that prooves that "millions of millions" of Africans were sloughtered.

Do you know how many men Britain would have needed to kill millions of people with muzzle loaders? They hardly had that many!

Britain had a large navy, NEVER a large army?

Where is your proof that Britain shot millions?

Are you aware the fact that Spain won the Aztec Kingdom, that had thousend of soliders, with a small militia ? Britain didn't killed the African and the Indians all by war but mainly by slavery.

Britain did had a large army, that's why they were empire and won Frence and Spain on the race for the colonisation of the New World and Africa.

And, again:
The British were really good at keeping records and from available mortality and population statistics it is possible to make an estimate of avoidable mortality” “(technically, excess mortality) during and after British rule in India. Avoidable mortality (excess mortality) is the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected in a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics. The avoidable mortality totalled about 0.6 billion (1757-1837 i.e. from the British conquest of Bengal to the accession of Queen Victoria), 0.5 billion (1837-1901 i.e. during the reign of Queen Victoria) and 0.4 billion (1901-1947 i.e. from the death of Queen Victoria until independence). By way of comparison, the Indian post-independence avoidable mortality has totalled about 0.4 billion (but one must realize that the Indian population grew enormously post-independence from about 0.35 billion to the present 1.1 billion). The 1.5 billion Indian Holocaust under the British is the greatest catastrophe and greatest crime in human history – and has of course been largely deleted from British historiography.

Britain NEVER had a large army!

It's supremacy over Spain was naval supremacy.

It's land victories against Napoleon required the help of Prussians and others.

As for "avoidable mortality"!

PURE SPECULATION and AMBIGUITY!!

The fact that they have no statistics, dates, names of regiments and don't mention massacres or mass killings should tell you it's BS.

More Australians died in the 50s under Menzies than died in the 70s und the Socialist Whitlam. But that's because of improvements in medicine, NOT who was in power.

Britain had a large army and that's why they won in the WWI, Boxer Rebellions, Boer Wars etc'.
 
 
 Until 1751 regiments were known by their successive colonels' names, but in that year they were numbered approximately in the order of their seniority. (Those that were out of order had originally been on a non-English establishment.) Since names fluctuated considerably, the army had to make numbers work as the designation of continuity. At the high end of enumeration, extra regiments were raised for wars and subsequently disbanded. Such regiments which may have shared the same number at different periods of history did not claim continuity with each other. A very rare exception were the 5th Dragoons, who re-formed in 1858 after being disbanded for almost sixty years yet claimed the heritage of its antecedent. At the same time the regiment lost its position of seniority, which resulted upon amalgamation with another regiment in 1922 in the "backwards" title of 16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers.
 Cavalry were originally styled "horse" and "dragoons", the latter fighting as dismounted as infantry. The Horse regiments were eventually re-styled "dragoon guards" (three regiments in 1746, and the remaining four in 1788), even though they never had a royal guards role.

 Prior to 1782, when almost all infantry regiments were assigned county titles, very few had any honorary distinction besides the number. These numbers remained in use for a hundred and thirty years, and to them adhered the accumulated lore of the regiments such that the numbers kept reasserting themselves long after they were officially abandoned. The 1760 list well illustrates the practice of disbanding and renumbering regiments. Numerous regiments were disbanded before and raised after 1760, notably during the Seven Years' War, the American Revolution, and the French invasion scare of the 1790s. Twenty-one infantry regiments raised in the 1750s survived into the 20th century, but another twenty-three were disbanded by 1768.
http://www.regiments.org/about/index.htm

The French were strong because Napolean was very good warlord, but the English win him in a very poor fight and after that he was exiled out of France. But, I was talking about the years befor 1789 and after Napoleon era.

The fact that they have no statistics, dates, names of regiments and don't mention massacres or mass killings should tell you it's BS.

As long as there are no evidence, yes, we should believe there were not. Unless you are really in a deep issue and can't accept the fact that Europeans sloughtered Millions of people. Oh well...Did I said Cognitive dissonance with high level of deniel ?

How many slaves did Britain take?

How many died?

Quote some real numbers.

The brutal story of African slavery in the British colonies of the West Indies and North America is told with clarity and compassion in this classic history. James Walvin explores the experiences which bound together slaves from diverse African backgrounds and explains how slavery transformed the tastes and economy of the Western world.
Although written for readers with no prior knowledge of the subject, Walvins's account is based on detailed scholarship, drawing on a body of work from the USA, the West Indies and Britain. All aspects of African slavery up to 1776 are covered; the situation of women, flight and rebellion, disease and death, the conditions on the slave ships, the abolition campaign and much more. The narrative is enlivened and personalised by frequent reference to individual lives.

For this revised edition, the author has incorporated recent scholarly findings and updated the notes and bibliography in order to keep the book current. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

The brutal story of African slavery in the British colonies of the West Indies and North America is told with clarity and compassion in this classic history. James Walvin explores the experiences which bound together slaves from diverse African backgrounds and explains how slavery transformed the tastes and economy of the Western world. Although written for readers with no prior knowledge of the subject, Walvins's account is based on detailed scholarship, drawing on a body of work from the USA, the West Indies and Britain. All aspects of African slavery up to 1776 are covered: the situation of women, flight and rebellion, disease and death, the conditions on the slave ships, the abolition campaign and much more. The narrative is enlivened and personalised by frequent reference to individual lives. For this revised edition, the author has incorporated recent scholarly findings and updated the notes and bibliography in order to keep the book current.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Ivory-Slavery-British-Empire/dp/0631229604


Read here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr5.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4742049.stm
http://www.portobellobooks.com/books/enslaved.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/slavery.htm

There were also white European slaves that were held by Europeans:
According to observers of the late 1500s and early 1600s, there were around 35,000 European Christian slaves held throughout this time on the Barbary Coast - many in Tripoli, Tunis, and various Moroccan towns, but most of all in Algiers. The greatest number were sailors, taken with their ships, but a good many were fishermen and coastal villagers. Out of all these, the British captives were mostly sailors, and although they were numerous there were relatively fewer of them than of people from lands close to Africa, especially Spain and Italy. The unfortunate southerners were sometimes taken by the thousands, by slavers who raided the coasts of Valencia, Andalusia, Calabria and Sicily so often that eventually it was said that 'there was no one left to capture any longer'.

'White slaves in Barbary were generally from impoverished families...'
There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers - about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680.

By extension, for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000 - this is only just over a tenth of the Africans taken as slaves to the Americas from 1500 to 1800, but a considerable figure nevertheless. White slaves in Barbary were generally from impoverished families, and had almost as little hope of buying back their freedom as the Africans taken to the Americas: most would end their days as slaves in North Africa, dying of starvation, disease, or maltreatment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_02.shtml

The Slave Trade

In order to understand the historical aspects of the activities which became known as the slave trade, it is necessary to be aware of the ambitious economic greed that sparked it.  The enslaving of Africans was practiced long before the voyages of Europeans to the Gold Coast.  Beginning on a small scale, African rulers of various states traded their own people for surplus goods.  Slaves were kept on estates that engaged in production for the ruler.  The trading between Africans resulted in an interconnected system of trade networks along Africa’s many rivers. African rulers likewise became deeply involved in interstate commerce.  With the arrival of Europeans, African rulers recognized international trade as a new profitable source of revenue.  After 1500, European merchants increased their imports from Africa and slaves became one of the most valuable commodities. The exportation of Africans as slaves was nevertheless possible because so many African rulers and their established societies possessed slaves themselves.

Europeans served as the connecting influence to the trade of Africans to the Americas.  Numerous trade routes made up the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.  Shorter routes, like the one connecting Angola, Africa to Brazil, South America, consisted of the most traffic and lasted a period of about five weeks.  The longest voyage took two months.  It is the notorious Middle Passage which spanned the waters between Southeast Africa and the Americas.  Along the Middle Passage slaves suffered inhumane cruelty.  Like cattle, slaves were overcrowded onto ships with sparse, poor quality food.  Sanitation literally did not exist and so disease spread rapidly in close, filthy living quarters below deck.  The conditions only added to the mental anguish many Africans were experiencing. Psychological and physiological traumas caused depression amongst helpless  people: traveling a vast expanse, unaware of destination, lacking identity in their exploited nakedness.  The mortality rate on a trip from Angola to the Western Caribbean ran at an average of 15%.  Shorter voyages avoided death altogether while others could experience the loss of more than half of their cargo.

Slaves were first introduced to the Caribbean in 1502.  Shortly afterwards, the Spanish established a sugar mill in Hispaniola.  The Caribbean islands discovered the advantages of slave labor for tropical crops.  The closer the equator, the more tropical the climate.  Similarly, the more African workers in demand.  Transport costs were low, crops were profitable, and the Americas were relatively close in proximity to Africa.  It was all quite convenient and profitable.  Brazil and the Caribbean Basin together imported ¾ of all Africans that reached the Americas.  Slaves could be replenished yearly and soon Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Jamaica  were reaping the benefits of the slave trade.  The Americas developed an economy based on a steady stream of black labor.  Slaves became the most valuable and productive members of the work force.  Their forced labor load increased plantation profits and fueled the expanding Atlantic economy.

Jamestown, Virginia was first introduced to captive labor in 1607.  By the 1660’s until the 1730’s it was common practice for Caribbean saves to be sold to ship captains traveling to Chesapeake.  While most Africans poured into Brazil and the Caribbean, during Trans-Atlantic trade, the colonies received one in every twenty Africans that came to the Americas.  In 1680, only 7,000 Americans lived on the mainland.  Unfortunately, the colonies experienced a noticeable growth in slave numbers.  Eventually, all the up colonies from Massachusetts Bay to Georgia Florida border received Africans.  In the 1730’s, Charleston became the primary up 3  market for importing slaves. In 1732, Georgia added to that demand.  Before the 1660’s the Dutch were the main suppliers of slaves to the colonies. Afterwards, the English controlled the trade by established companies: Company of Royal Adventures in 1663 and The Royal African Company in 1672. In addition to these changes in trade, the 1600’s meant the importation of “seasoned slaves,” so named because they were bought from the Caribbean.  The practice proved troublesome and expensive.  To increase profits the colonies dealt with direct trade from Africa.  In 1766, Savannah received the first direct cargo of slaves and soon after, 4 out of 5 slaves in Chesapeake were from direct shipments.  The colonies, like the Caribbean, developed an economy based on slaves and the slave trade.  In Chesapeake, slaves worked on tobacco plantations.  In Georgia and the Carolinas it was rice.  Elsewhere it was sugar, cacao, and cotton.  John Rolfe, a tobacco planter, was quoted in 1619 as saying: “About the last of August came in a Dutch man of warre to what sold us 20 Negars” (Conniff 125).  Planters depended on black slave labor to continue their production of crops and therefore their increase in profits.

Trans-Atlantic trade not only fueled and fed-off the productivity of the Americas economies; it also dominated migration there.  Large influxes of people related in short periods of time.  During Atlantic trade in the early 16th century, 5,000 slaves made up the annual exports.  By the 18th century, that number reached 60,000.  The Middle Passage is responsible for transporting 10 million Africans to the Americas.  This is considered the largest migration in history before the European Exodus.

The campaign to end the slave trade did not begin until the 1780’s.  It was a time when traffic reached its utmost height of 900,000 African slaves shipped that decade alone.  Restrictions and high prices could not stop stubborn trade amongst up 5  merchants.  Trade still expanded either by smuggling or sailing under a different flag.  Putting an end to the slave trade meant reconstructing the Atlantic economy. The U.S. was not seriously disturbed by the deconstruction of the trade system.  They participated in domestic slave trade made possible by natural increase of slave population.  On the other hand, the demand and access to slaves from international trade determined the economics of plantations in Cuba and Brazil.  From 1800 to 1860 the U.S. slave population jumped from 1 million to 4 million.  The U.S. had a substitute to the Atlantic slave trade and came to dominate the world market.  In 11860, they produced over half of the global exports of raw cotton.  Meanwhile, Cuba and Brazil struggled to prolong trade.

The longevity of the slave trade was made possible by its economic importance to plantations in the Caribbean and by indifference to humanity.
http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/british_america/slave_trade.htm

 

[Dexter]

And of course :
Year
 Events
 
1400
 At the end of the 14th century, Europeans start to take people from Africa against their will. Initially these captives are mainly used as servants for the rich.
 
1502
 The first African slaves arrive in the Americas.
 
1562
 Sir John Hawkins becomes the first English slave trader when he adds the transportation of captured Africans to his family's trading interests in west Africa. He is backed by the treasurer to the British navy, the lord mayor of London and Elizabeth I. Between 1564 and 1569, he makes three further voyages to the Sierra Leone River, taking a total of 1,200 Africans across the Atlantic to sell to Spanish settlers in the Caribbean island of Hispaniola (now Haiti/Dominican Republic). On his third voyage in 1567/8, he is accompanied by the young Francis Drake.

With Hawkins, the triangular trade – between Europe, west Africa, the West Indies (or British North America), returning to the starting point – has begun. It is risky and competitive, but African slaves fetch high prices at auction, making the trade in human cargo a lucrative business.

Read more about the Slave Trade on the Origination website.
 
1600
 By now, slaves can be purchased in Africa for about $25 and sold in the Americas for about $150.
 
1632
 Charles I grants a licence to a group of London merchants for the transportation of enslaved people from West Africa.
 
1646
 Philosopher Sir Thomas Browne writes against slavery.
 
1650
 With the development of plantations on the newly colonised Caribbean islands and American mainland, the slave trade begins to grow.
 
1655
 Slave uprising in Jamaica.
 
1660
 Charles II grants a charter to the Company of Royal Adventurers of England Trading to Africa. Their supporters include members of the royal family, peers, major London merchants – and Samuel Pepys. Within five years, the company earns an estimated £100,000 from its trade in enslaved Africans.
 
1672
 The Royal African Company is formed by a group of London merchants to regulate the English slave trade. It receives annual grants from Parliament totalling about £90,000. Charles I is a shareholder and his brother, the duke of York (and future king James II), is the governor. Between 1680 and 1686, it transports an average 5,000 slaves per year.
 
1673
 Slave uprising in Jamaica.
 
1698
 The Royal African Company loses its monopoly. The slave trade is opened up to private traders who must pay a 10% duty on English goods exported to Africa and towards the cost of maintaining slave forts on the west coast of Africa.

Bristol's first slave ship, the Beginning, sails to the African coast, buys a number of enslaved Africans and delivers them to Jamaica.
 
1699
 By the end of the century, one out of every four ships that leaves Liverpool harbour is a slave trading ship.
 
1700
 Liverpool's first slave ship, the Liverpool Merchant, transports 220 slaves to Barbados and sells them for £4,239, less than £20 per slave.
 
1713
 At the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, Britain signs the Treaty of Utrecht with Spain. This grants Britain the right (asiento) to import slaves into Spanish America for 30 years. The British government sells the asiento to the South Sea Company (later to be come infamous in the scandal of the 'South Sea Bubble') for the enormous sum of £7.5 million. Between 1715 and 1731, the company transports approximately 64,000 enslaved Africans.
 
1720
 From now until the end of the decade, nearly 200,000 enslaved Africans are transported across the Atlantic in British ships.
 
1729
 The 1st Maroon War begins in Jamaica between the British and the Maroons, runaway slaves who had become established in the mountains.
 
1730
 Bristol begins to overtake London as the leading slaving port in Britain.
 
1735–6
 Slave revolt on Antigua: 77 of the rebels are burned alive.
 
1739
 The 1st Maroon War (see 1729) ends in Jamaica. The freedom and the right to self-government of the Maroons is recognised and they are given their land. In return, they will support the British against foreign invasion of the island, and will help capture runaway slaves from the plantations.
 
1740
 Slavers from the ship Jolly Bachelor are attacked in the Sierra Leone River by free Africans, who liberate the slaves that had been captured.

Liverpool begins to overtake Bristol as the leading slaving port in Britain.
 
1745
 Bristol merchant John Cary writes in his book A Discourse on Trade that the slave trade held ‘... the Prospect of so great a Profit’ to investors. At this time, profits of 50 to 100% are possible.
 
1750
 The Royal African Company is replaced by the Company of Merchants Trading to Africa, made up of 89 Liverpool merchants, 157 from London and 237 from Bristol.

For the next 30 years, almost three-quarters of the British slave trade is financed by Liverpool merchants.
 
1753
 Slaves on the ship The Adventure, off West Africa, carry out a successful uprising against the slavers.
 
1760
 Tacky's Rebellion, Jamaica: Maroons (see 1729, 1739), led by Tacky, defeat a rebellion by newly arrived African slaves. More than 400 slaves are executed and 600 deported as a result.

The Quakers ban their members from slave trading.
 
1763
 Slave uprising in Guiana in the north-east of South America. It is governed for a year by a slave named Cuffy.
 
1765
 The Strong case: Londoner Granville Sharp and his surgeon brother are visited by Jonathan Strong, a black slave beaten almost to death by his master David Lisle. Sharp takes Strong to Bart's Hospital, where he spends four months recovering. When Strong regains his health, Lisle pays two men to recapture him. Sharp takes Lisle to court, claiming that, as Strong is in England, he is no longer a slave. It is not until 1768 that the court rules in Strong's favour. The case receives national publicity, and Sharp is able to use it in his campaign against slavery.
 
1769
 Following the Strong case, Granville Sharp publishes his findings about the horrors of slavery in the important pamphlet A representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating slavery in England.
 
1772
 The Somerset case: In 1769, Charles Stewart takes one of his slaves, James Somerset, from Jamaica to Britain. Two years later, Somerset runs away, but is recaptured and put on a ship bound for Jamaica. Granville Sharp intervenes and puts the case before Lord Mansfield, lord chief justice of England. He rules that no one brought to England can be sent back to the colonies as a slave against their will.
 
1776
 The House of Commons debates the motion ‘That the slave trade is contrary to the laws of God and the rights of man’.
 
1778
 The House of Commons sets up a committee to investigate the slave trade.

Wedderburn v. Knight: Joseph Knight, who was purchased from a Jamaica slave trader by John Wedderburn, seeks to leave Wedderburn's employ, claiming that the act of landing in Scotland has freed him from ‘perpetual servitude’, as slavery is not recognised in Scotland. Wedderburn insists that slavery and perpetual servitude are different states, arguing that, in Scot's law, Knight, even though not recognised as a slave, is still bound to provide perpetual service in the same manner as an indentured servant or an apprenticed artisan. The justices of the peace in Perth find in favour of Wedderburn. Knight then appeals to the sheriff deputy and the decision is overturned. Wedderburn then makes a further appeal to the lords of council and session, who uphold his appeal and order that Knight cannot choose to abandon his old ‘master’.
 
1780
 The Zong case: 131 Africans are thrown overboard from the slave ship Zong, but the case is heard as an insurance dispute, not a murder trial. It causes outrage and strengthens the abolition campaign.

The Quakers present a petition to Parliament against the slave trade.
 
1787
 22 May: Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp form the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Of the 12 members on the committee, nine are Quakers. Influential figures such as John Wesley and Josiah Wedgwood give their support to the campaign. Later they persuade William Wilberforce, MP for Hull, to be their spokesman in the House of Commons.

Wedgwood produces the Abolition Society's seal. It shows a black slave in chains, kneeling, his hands lifted up to heaven. The motto reads: ‘Am I Not a Man and a Brother?’

Clarkson publishes his pamphlet A Summary View of the Slave Trade and of the Probable Consequences of Its Abolition. When he visits Manchester, an anti-slavery petition is signed by almost 11,000 people, 20% of the city's population.

Ottobah Cuguano becomes the first ex-slave to formally criticise slavery and the slave trade, in his autobiography Thoughts and sentiments on the evil and wicked traffic of the slavery and commerce of the human species.

From now to 1807, all 20 mayors of Liverpool finance or own slave ships.
 
1788
 28 January: Bristol becomes the first city outside London to set up a committee to press for the abolition of the slave trade.

A House of Commons committee discovers that the slave ship Brookes, originally built to carry a maximum of 451 people, is transporting more than 600 slaves from Africa to the Americas. The Dolben Act – the first law related to the slave trade – is enacted to limit the number of slaves a ship is permitted to carry.
 
1789
 12 May: William Wilberforce MP makes his first anti-slavery speech.

Olaudah Equiano publishes his memoir: The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African. It contains one of the few accounts of the ‘Middle Passage’ – the Africa-Americas leg of the ‘triangular trade’ – from a slave's point of view: ‘The shrieks of the women and the groans of the dying, rendered the whole a scene of horror almost inconceivable.’
 
1790
 The British West Indies has a slave population of 480,000.
 
1791
 William Wilberforce presents to the House of Commons his first Bill to abolish the slave trade. It is easily defeated, 163 votes to 88.

The Kimber case: John Kimber, master of the slave ship Recovery, is accused of murdering a young female slave, whom he suspended by her ankle and whipped to punish her for not eating. He protests his innocence and is found not guilty at the High Court of the Admiralty. The ship's surgeon and third mate who testify against him are charged with perjury. The case creates headlines throughout Britain.

Between now and the end of the decade, 1,340 slaving voyages are mounted from British ports, carrying nearly 400,000 Africans to the Americas.
 
1792
 Denmark, which was very active in the slave trade, becomes the first country to ban the trade through legislation (it takes effect in 1803).

William Wilberforce gains House of Commons support for the gradual abolition of the slave trade. But it is a hollow victory as no timetable for change is attached to the Act.
 
1793
 The cotton industry is given a boost with Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin. With the aid of a horse to turn the gin, a man can now clean 50 times as much cotton as before. This increases the demand for slaves.
 
1794
 Following a slave revolt, France loses its most important colony St Dominigue (now Haiti). From now, the British island colonies in the Caribbean produce the most sugar and the British public becomes its greatest consumers. Products of American slave labour soon permeate every level of British society, with tobacco, coffee and, especially, sugar all becoming indispensable elements of daily life for all classes.
 
1795
 Fédon's Rebellion in Grenada causes enormous damage to plantations. Slaves seize control of large parts of the island before being defeated by British troops in 1796.

2nd Maroon War in Jamaica (see 1739). After a new governor, the earl of Balcarres, arrests Maroon leaders for stealing pigs, the conflict begins, with 300 Maroons holding out for five months against 1,500 British troops and 3,000 members of the local militia. Undefeated but threatened with bloodhounds, the Maroons offer to surrender, but most fail to meet the three-day deadline. The governor refuses to be flexible and arrests the Maroons, who are transported, first, to Nova Scotia and then to Sierra Leone.
 
1796
 John Stedman publishes an account of the inhumanity he had seen shown to African slaves during a military expedition to put down a rebellion in Surinam in South America in 1772–3. Narrative of a Five Years Expedition against the Revolted Negroes of Surinam becomes a classic of abolitionist literature.
 
1800
 By far the most successful West Indian colonies belong to the UK. After entering the sugar colony business late, British naval supremacy and control over key islands such as Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados and the territory of Guiana give it an important edge over all competitors.

Since 1600, the British have imported about 1.7 million slaves to their West Indian possessions.
 
1801
 Slave revolt on Tobago.
 
1805
 The House of Commons passes a bill that makes it unlawful for any British subject to capture and transport slaves, but the measure is blocked by the House of Lords.

Slave revolt on Trinidad.
 
1806
 Abolition of the Slave Trade Bill passes both the House of Lords (41 votes to 20) and the House of Commons (114 to 15).
 
1807
 From 1662, British and British colonial ships have purchased an estimated 3,415,000 Africans, of whom 2,964,800 have survived the ‘Middle Passage’ (between Africa and the Western Hemisphere) and have been sold into slavery in the Americas.

25 March: Abolition of the Slave Trade Act becomes law. British captains who are caught continuing the trade are fined £100 (about £5,000 today) for every slave found on board.

According to BBC News, ‘The British were the first big slave-trading nation to abandon the trade. They did this in 1807 when there were still huge profits to be made, and they did it for mainly moral reasons. It took a revolution of the slaves to destroy France's system and a terrible civil war in the US decided the fate of the slaves of the southern states. In Britain alone, slavery was ended by millions of people, black and white, free and enslaved, who decided it could no longer be tolerated.’

The Royal Navy positions ships along the west coast of Africa and east Africa and the Caribbean to enforce the ban. However, this does not stop the British slave trade. If slave ships are in danger of being captured by the navy, captains often reduce the fines they have to pay by ordering their slaves to be thrown into the sea. Slaves are still being intercepted into the 1880s.

Thomas Clarkson publishes his book History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade. He, Granville Sharp and Thomas Fowell Buxton form the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery.

The United States bans the slave trade, to take effect the following year, but not slavery itself.
 
1808
 The British West Africa Squadron is established at Sierra Leone to suppress any illegal slave trading by British citizens.
 
1810
 Participation in the slave trade is made a felony in the UK.
 
1816
 Bussa's Rebellion in Barbados: Some 400 slaves and free mulattoes, who had believed that the 1807 Act was intended to free them, destroy 20% of the island's sugar crop before being brutally crushed. 176 slaves die in the uprising (including their leader Bussa) and another 214 are executed.
 
1817
 23 September: Britain and Spain sign a treaty prohibiting the slave trade. Spain agrees to end the slave trade north of the equator immediately, and south of the equator in 1820. British naval vessels are given right to search suspected slavers.

Slave Registration Act forces all slave owners to provide a list every two years of all the enslaved people they own.

Le Louis case: British courts establish the principal that British naval vessels cannot search foreign vessels suspected of slaving unless permitted by their respective countries – a ruling that hampers British efforts to suppress the slave trade.
 
1820
 The US makes slave trading piracy, punishable by death.
 
1823
 The Anti-Slavery Society is formed by Thomas Clarkson, Henry Brougham, William Wilberforce and Thomas Fowell Buxton.

A rising by at least 10,000 slaves in Demerara in South America is brutally suppressed by British forces: 250 enslaved people die, 33 are executed and the Rev. John Smith of the London Missionary Society is sentenced to death for his part, causing outrage in Britain. As William Wilberforce tries to organise a reprieve, Smith dies in prison.
 
1824
 Elizabeth Heyrick publishes her pamphlet Immediate not Gradual Abolition, which argues passionately for the immediate emancipation of the slaves in the British colonies.

Britain and the US negotiate a treaty recognising the slave trade as piracy and establishing procedures for joint suppression. But in a series of amendments, the US Senate undercuts the treaty's force, and the British refuse to sign.
 
1825
 The Birmingham Ladies Society for the Relief of Negro Slaves is formed, and is quickly followed by the formation of numerous other women's anti-slavery societies in Britain – 73 by 1831. The campaign to end slavery is dominated by women. With no vote, it is one of the few ways that women are able to get involved in politics.
 
1827
 Britain declares the slave trade piracy, punishable by death.
 
1830
 May: The Anti-Slavery Society agrees to drop the aim of 'gradual abolition'.
 
1831
 25 December: A major slave revolt called ‘The Baptist War’ breaks out in Jamaica, led by black Baptist preacher (and slave) Sam Sharpe, and is brutally suppressed: 200 slaves are killed during the revolt and 344 (including Sharpe) are executed afterwards.

The History of Mary Prince – the first account of the life of a black woman to appear in the UK – is published in London and becomes an important part of the anti-slavery literature.
 
1832
 The Great Reform Act results in new Members of Parliament from groups who are more likely to oppose slavery.
 
1833
 Slavery Abolition Act is passed, coming into force in 1834. It forbids the possession of enslaved people within the British empire and by British subjects. All slaves over the age of six become ‘indentured labourers’ and have to serve an apprenticeship before receiving full emancipation in 1838. A total of £20,000,000 is awarded to the planters as compensation; the former slaves get nothing.
 
1835
 28 June: Anglo-Spanish agreement on the slave trade is renewed, and enforcement is tightened. British cruisers are authorised to arrest suspected Spanish slavers and bring them before mixed commissions established at Sierra Leone and Havana.
 
1863
 1 January: While civil war rages between the North and the South, US President Abraham Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in the southern states. They only achieve their freedom as the Union army advances through the Confederacy. By the end of the civil war in 1865, a total of some 4 million slaves have been freed.
 

[newman]

So according to those sources there are a bit over 11 million slaves taken (including white ones) by all of europe.

A bit hard to back up your claim of 200 million dead!

[Dexter]

So according to those sources there are a bit over 11 million slaves taken (including white ones) by all of europe.

A bit hard to back up your claim of 200 million dead!

Because it isn't true and I was misleaded (?) by History Channel. But, if you'll gather the kills in Africa it would be just a "bit" more than 11 milion people.
By the way, what do you think of the European slaves ?

[newman]

So according to those sources there are a bit over 11 million slaves taken (including white ones) by all of europe.

A bit hard to back up your claim of 200 million dead!

Because it isn't true and I was misleaded (?) by History Channel.
By the way, what do you think of the European slaves ?

Australia was founded by them. They were called convicts. And we're all very happy the British chained us and sent us here. If not I'd be in the disgusting UK with all the muSSlims and bad weather. Just like carribeans are glad the British sent them there. Better to be singing the 'banana boat song' in St Lucia than starving in africa with face flies.

BTW,

Are Zimbabweeans better off without the white man now?

[newman]

On the (small) British Army:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NDP8RVXvlUMC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=britain+never+had+a+large+standing+army&source=web&ots=bOJzx4zH36&sig=Liz6smg3mkP6p9IQzqxm4v7sGzA


No mention of British Empire massacres even on leftist wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

[newman]

"00 million indians killed in the Americas?

How many people lived in the Americas in 1491?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Scholarly estimates have run from 8 million to 112 million. Europe, by way of comparison, had about 70 million people at the time.

In the 1830s artist George Catlin estimated there had been 16 million Indians in North America at the time of contact. He was in the minority. In 1894, the Census Bureau suggested the number had been more like 600,000.

In the 20th century experts used counts at the time of contact (as reported by explorers, etc.) to estimate the pre-contact population. In 1928, Smithsonian ethnologist James Mooney guessed 1.15 million persons were present in 1492 in what is now the U.S. and Canada. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber further refined Mooney’s work and concluded there were 4.2 million inhabitants in North America and 4.2 million inhabitants in South America before Columbus.

The problem with these estimates is that, among other things, they failed to account for the incredible loss of life due to disease BEFORE direct contact; that is, before the explorers and first settlers could make a count. Diseases unknown in the Americas (foremost being smallpox) may have killed as many as 90 percent of the indigenous people in some areas BEFORE any Europeans arrived.

In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada.

There weren't even that many there!!!!!!

[Dexter]

"00 million indians killed in the Americas?

How many people lived in the Americas in 1491?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Scholarly estimates have run from 8 million to 112 million. Europe, by way of comparison, had about 70 million people at the time.

In the 1830s artist George Catlin estimated there had been 16 million Indians in North America at the time of contact. He was in the minority. In 1894, the Census Bureau suggested the number had been more like 600,000.

In the 20th century experts used counts at the time of contact (as reported by explorers, etc.) to estimate the pre-contact population. In 1928, Smithsonian ethnologist James Mooney guessed 1.15 million persons were present in 1492 in what is now the U.S. and Canada. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber further refined Mooney’s work and concluded there were 4.2 million inhabitants in North America and 4.2 million inhabitants in South America before Columbus.

The problem with these estimates is that, among other things, they failed to account for the incredible loss of life due to disease BEFORE direct contact; that is, before the explorers and first settlers could make a count. Diseases unknown in the Americas (foremost being smallpox) may have killed as many as 90 percent of the indigenous people in some areas BEFORE any Europeans arrived.

In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada.

There weren't even that many there!!!!!!

Proove it.
BTW, why do reading just now ?

[newman]

"00 million indians killed in the Americas?

How many people lived in the Americas in 1491?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Scholarly estimates have run from 8 million to 112 million. Europe, by way of comparison, had about 70 million people at the time.

In the 1830s artist George Catlin estimated there had been 16 million Indians in North America at the time of contact. He was in the minority. In 1894, the Census Bureau suggested the number had been more like 600,000.

In the 20th century experts used counts at the time of contact (as reported by explorers, etc.) to estimate the pre-contact population. In 1928, Smithsonian ethnologist James Mooney guessed 1.15 million persons were present in 1492 in what is now the U.S. and Canada. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber further refined Mooney’s work and concluded there were 4.2 million inhabitants in North America and 4.2 million inhabitants in South America before Columbus.

The problem with these estimates is that, among other things, they failed to account for the incredible loss of life due to disease BEFORE direct contact; that is, before the explorers and first settlers could make a count. Diseases unknown in the Americas (foremost being smallpox) may have killed as many as 90 percent of the indigenous people in some areas BEFORE any Europeans arrived.

In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada.

There weren't even that many there!!!!!!

Proove it.
BTW, why do reading just now ?

I can't prove or disprove. Neither can you.

 But it's interesting that even the biggest of all pre-eauropean population claims are 112 million all up. So your 200 million killed (plus the number of survivors) looks way off.

When dealing with ancient history you need to canvass a wide body of schollarly opinion. That's just what that article does.

[Dexter]

"00 million indians killed in the Americas?

How many people lived in the Americas in 1491?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Scholarly estimates have run from 8 million to 112 million. Europe, by way of comparison, had about 70 million people at the time.

In the 1830s artist George Catlin estimated there had been 16 million Indians in North America at the time of contact. He was in the minority. In 1894, the Census Bureau suggested the number had been more like 600,000.

In the 20th century experts used counts at the time of contact (as reported by explorers, etc.) to estimate the pre-contact population. In 1928, Smithsonian ethnologist James Mooney guessed 1.15 million persons were present in 1492 in what is now the U.S. and Canada. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber further refined Mooney’s work and concluded there were 4.2 million inhabitants in North America and 4.2 million inhabitants in South America before Columbus.

The problem with these estimates is that, among other things, they failed to account for the incredible loss of life due to disease BEFORE direct contact; that is, before the explorers and first settlers could make a count. Diseases unknown in the Americas (foremost being smallpox) may have killed as many as 90 percent of the indigenous people in some areas BEFORE any Europeans arrived.

In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada.

There weren't even that many there!!!!!!

Proove it.
BTW, why do reading just now ?

I can't prove or disprove. Neither can you.

 But it's interesting that even the biggest of all pre-eauropean population claims are 112 million all up. So your 200 million killed (plus the number of survivors) looks way off.

When dealing with ancient history you need to canvass a wide body of schollarly opinion. That's just what that article does.

I gave you sources.

[newman]

I'm still trying to find statistics on total killed by european imperialism. Not disease deaths but actual mass-murders or deliberate starvation etc. I'm googling but having no luck.

Got these interesting stats though:

State mass-murder numbers:

20th century ALONE:

1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide <DBG.CHAP1.HTM>]
I BACKGROUND
2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide <DBG.CHAP2.HTM>]
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered <DBG.CHAP3.HTM>: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
References <DBG.REFERENCES.HTM>
Index

IMPORTANT NOTE: Among all the democide estimates appearing in this book, some have been revised upward. I have changed that for Mao's famine, 1958-1962, from zero to 38,000,000. And thus I have had to change the overall democide for the PRC (1928-1987) from 38,702,000 to 76,702,000. Details here. <http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/11/reevaluating-chinas-democide-to-be.html>
I have changed my estimate for colonial democide from 870,000 to an additional 50,000,000. Details here <http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/12/reevaluating-colonial-democide.html>.
Thus, the new world total: old total 1900-1999 = 174,000,000. New World total = 174,000,000 + 38,000,000 (new for China) + 50,000,000 (new for Colonies) = 262,000,000.
Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.

All this in just ONE century.

Makes the colonial Europeans over 500 years and all the christians over 1700 years  look good, doesn't it.?

Death by religion:

A popular urban legend that I've often heard is that religion has killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more peaceful place were it not for religion. The top three largest examples are thought to be the Crusades of the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, and the burning of witches. Scholars estimate that the Crusades of the middle ages cost from 58,000 to 133,000 lives. The most realistic figure for the Spanish Inquisition puts the total killed from AD1480 to AD1808 at up to 31,912. Finally, records indicate that the number of witches killed may be over 30,000. Some argue that records don't tell everything and suggest that maybe even 100,000 were killed. These three events, totaling over 264,000 killed, are thought to be the largest atrocities perpetrated by one or another form of Christendom. As we shall shortly see, however, they pale into insignificance in comparison to the consequences of atheism.

The best source is The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, by Stephane Courtois, et al. (Harvard University Press, 1999 for the English translation). The book is highly worth owning ($27 at Amazon).
Here is the Publishers Weekly entry from Amazon.com:
In France, this damning reckoning of communism's worldwide legacy was a bestseller that sparked passionate arguments among intellectuals of the Left. Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the century. In France, both sales and controversy were fueled, as Martin Malia notes in the foreword, by editor Courtois's specific comparison of communism's "class genocide" with Nazism's "race genocide." Courtois, the director of research at the prestigious Centre Research National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris and editor of the journal Communisme, along with the other distinguished French and European contributors, delivers a fact-based, mostly Russia-centered wallop that will be hard to refute: town burnings, mass deportations, property seizures, family separations, mass murders, planned famines: all chillingly documented from conception to implementation. The book is divided into five sections. The first and largest takes readers from the "Paradoxes of the October Revolution" through "Apogee and Crisis in the Gulag System" to "The Exit from Stalinism." Seeing the U.S.S.R. as "the cradle of all modern Communism," the book's other four sections document the horrors of the Iron Curtain countries, Soviet-backed agitation in Asia and the Americas, and the Third World's often violent embrace of the system. A conclusion: "Why?"Aby Courtois, points to a bureaucratic, "purely abstract vision of death, massacre and human catastrophe" rooted in Lenin's compulsion to effect ideals by any means necessary.
#Two
"Add other killings by other atheistic and totalitarian states-as a
result of their atheistic ideology-you come up with a number of more
than 130 million. If we were to add those dead from the wars of the
twentieth century, the number would easily jump to 170 million" (See tagline).
You might add to that the killings being done *today* by the atheistic regimes in Zimbabwe and North Korea.
BTW, see the links debunking "The Da Vinci Code" on my
page <http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/dvncdvch.html>
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/DthByAthsm.htm

http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

[newman]

"00 million indians killed in the Americas?

How many people lived in the Americas in 1491?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Scholarly estimates have run from 8 million to 112 million. Europe, by way of comparison, had about 70 million people at the time.

In the 1830s artist George Catlin estimated there had been 16 million Indians in North America at the time of contact. He was in the minority. In 1894, the Census Bureau suggested the number had been more like 600,000.

In the 20th century experts used counts at the time of contact (as reported by explorers, etc.) to estimate the pre-contact population. In 1928, Smithsonian ethnologist James Mooney guessed 1.15 million persons were present in 1492 in what is now the U.S. and Canada. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber further refined Mooney’s work and concluded there were 4.2 million inhabitants in North America and 4.2 million inhabitants in South America before Columbus.

The problem with these estimates is that, among other things, they failed to account for the incredible loss of life due to disease BEFORE direct contact; that is, before the explorers and first settlers could make a count. Diseases unknown in the Americas (foremost being smallpox) may have killed as many as 90 percent of the indigenous people in some areas BEFORE any Europeans arrived.

In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada.

There weren't even that many there!!!!!!

Proove it.
BTW, why do reading just now ?

I can't prove or disprove. Neither can you.

 But it's interesting that even the biggest of all pre-eauropean population claims are 112 million all up. So your 200 million killed (plus the number of survivors) looks way off.

When dealing with ancient history you need to canvass a wide body of schollarly opinion. That's just what that article does.

I gave you sources.

sources are not proof. They are just a referrence to a web page or book where somebody expresses an oppinion. That's not proof.

Heres the source for the article:

http://newmexiken.com/archives/2005/06/005824.php

[Dexter]

"In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him. "

Well, that's what the source I gave said.
By the way:
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1_population_and_area.html

[newman]

"In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him. "

Well, that's what the source I gave said.
By the way:
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1_population_and_area.html

1/ He claims 112 million living in total before 1 european set foot there.

2/ Those claims are supported by no other academics. The agreed figure is less than half that (and remember academics are leftist, so they have no desire to save the reputation of imperialists).

3/ You claimed 200 million killed when at MOST there were only half that number in the whole continent from the artic circle to Cape Horn!

[Dexter]

"In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him. "

Well, that's what the source I gave said.
By the way:
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1_population_and_area.html

1/ He claims 112 million living in total before 1 european set foot there.

2/ Those claims are supported by no other academics. The agreed figure is less than half that (and remember academics are leftist, so they have no desire to save the reputation of imperialists).

3/ You claimed 200 million killed when at MOST there were only half that number in the whole continent from the artic circle to Cape Horn!

1. Where does the source said it was 112 millions after 1 european set foot there ?

2. Really ?

3. I already said it's not true, I hope you are able to read.

[newman]

"In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him. "

Well, that's what the source I gave said.
By the way:
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1_population_and_area.html

1/ He claims 112 million living in total before 1 european set foot there.

2/ Those claims are supported by no other academics. The agreed figure is less than half that (and remember academics are leftist, so they have no desire to save the reputation of imperialists).

3/ You claimed 200 million killed when at MOST there were only half that number in the whole continent from the artic circle to Cape Horn!

1. Where does the source said it was 112 millions after 1 european set foot there ?

2. Really ?

3. I already said it's not true, I hope you are able to read.

1/ Look at the name of the article:

"How many people lived in the Americas in 1491?" (Europeans didn't arive 'til 1492)

Now look at the passage from that article:

"In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada."

That's where it says it.

2/ That's also where it is refuted.

[Dexter]

"In the past 40 years the estimates of indigenous population have been much higher than before (and much higher than what most of us learned in school). In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him. "

Well, that's what the source I gave said.
By the way:
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1_population_and_area.html

1/ He claims 112 million living in total before 1 european set foot there.

2/ Those claims are supported by no other academics. The agreed figure is less than half that (and remember academics are leftist, so they have no desire to save the reputation of imperialists).

3/ You claimed 200 million killed when at MOST there were only half that number in the whole continent from the artic circle to Cape Horn!

1. Where does the source said it was 112 millions after 1 european set foot there ?

2. Really ?

3. I already said it's not true, I hope you are able to read.

1/ Look at the name of the article:

"How many people lived in the Americas in 1491?" (Europeans didn't arive 'til 1492)

Now look at the passage from that article:

"In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada."

That's where it says it.

2/ That's also where it is refuted.

1. "In 1966, anthropologist Henry Dobyns calculated there had been more than 10 million Indians in North America and 112 million altogether. Most critics felt he oversimplified (and overestimated the loss to disease). Subsequent estimates have moderated Dobyns’s count, but have been much higher than those that preceded him.

In the 1990s, geographer William Denevan attempted to reconcile various estimates. He concluded there were about 54 million people in the hemisphere; 3.8 million of these were in what is now the U.S. and Canada."

2. Umm, source ?

[newman]

http://newmexiken.com/archives/2005/06/005824.php