JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: newman on December 06, 2007, 10:37:08 PM
-
I'm getting sick to death of leftists, turd worlders, bleeding hearts and garden variety retarded idiots equating colonialism with eugenics/nazism!
A few questions:
Did the nazis invade primitives to improve the land and better the primitives' lives?...................NO.
Did the nazis allow the conquered to have their own reservations to build casinos on to make $millions?.............NO
Did the nazis give the conquered huge tracts of land allowing them to make $millions in mining royalties?............NO
Did the nazis pay $billions in social security to those they conquered and require them to do NOTHING in return?..............NO
Did the nazis spend $billions on health care, public housing, education and other benefits to those they conquered?.................NO
I will borrow one idea from the nazis....................Anyone so utterly stupid as to equate european/British colonisation of the new world with nazism should be either castrated or gassed!!!!!!!!!!
-
I think that a lot of these claims about colonialism are BS. Gimme a break--the Brits did want to get the riches of third world nations.
That being said, there's a difference between being greedy and starting a holocaust, so I do agree with you there.
-
While the Europeans were busy colonizing dark people, the dark people were busy colonizing themselves. The left has everyone convinced that they were holding each other's hands and singing kumbaya. They didn't advance while the Europeans did because they were living like violent savages.
-
Anyone so utterly stupid as to equate european/British colonisation of the new world with nazism should be either castrated or gassed!!!!!!!!!!
I totally agree, the British civilized a lot of the world.
-
Holland, Beldium, Denmark, Poland and all the other countries were civilised, advanced states with governments, schools, libraries and automobiles etc. Fancy equating them with lands that were occupied by warring tribes with not so much as one wooden wheel between them!
-
The Poles are crude anti-Semites.
The British did "civilize" a lot of the world but also sided with Islam in every mixed country and discriminated against the Jews--and facilitated the Holocaust.
-
The Poles are crude anti-Semites.
The British did "civilize" a lot of the world but also sided with Islam in every mixed country and discriminated against the Jews--and facilitated the Holocaust.
Did I claim the Brits were saints??
What relevance does your post (true as it is) have to the topic of this thread?
-
The Poles are crude anti-Semites.
The British did "civilize" a lot of the world but also sided with Islam in every mixed country and discriminated against the Jews--and facilitated the Holocaust.
and not to mention, how they(brits) starved women and children to death in "concentration camps", while they were "civilizing" the world!!!
-
The Poles are crude anti-Semites.
The British did "civilize" a lot of the world but also sided with Islam in every mixed country and discriminated against the Jews--and facilitated the Holocaust.
and not to mention, how they(brits) starved women and children to death in "concentration camps", while they were "civilizing" the world!!!
You can criticise many aspects of early colonists from South Africa, Australia or the USA.
But the fact remains that their actions were about as similar in intent and deed to the nazis as chalk is to cheese.
-
The Poles are crude anti-Semites.
The British did "civilize" a lot of the world but also sided with Islam in every mixed country and discriminated against the Jews--and facilitated the Holocaust.
and not to mention, how they(brits) starved women and children to death in "concentration camps", while they were "civilizing" the world!!!
You can criticise many aspects of early colonists from South Africa, Australia or the USA.
But the fact remains that their actions were about as similar in intent and deed to the nazis as chalk is to cheese.
Oh yes, that's right! Colonialism brough these people LIFE! Whereas nazism brought outright DEATH!
-
I agree with u that it shouldn't be compared.
But i also think it's wrong to say that what The Europeans did to the Natives or even human slavery is ok. I doubt you would feel that way if u were a fat gambling Native alcoholic with no concept of what was once your culture. Or a intellagent colored person in America... But to use that to lay a guilt trip on Americans is definitelly wrong because people all over the world did the same thing in those times. Hell, it took us 500+ years to get Turkish "nobles" out of "colonized" Serbia.
I bet they think they were enriching our culture as well, in reality they made sure that people in that part of the world will continue hating and killing eachother for generations. In our quest for glory, we become evil when we become oblivious to the pain of others! And that's just human nature, we have to fight that no matter what its origin.. and yea, sometimes that means looking in the mirror.
-
Of course I do not think they are synonymous. Colonialism was not mass extermination.
-
I agree with u that it shouldn't be compared.
But i also think it's wrong to say that what The Europeans did to the Natives or even human slavery is ok. I doubt you would feel that way if u were a fat gambling Native alcoholic with no concept of what was once your culture.
More silly leftist pollution of a young mind.
The fat alcoholic native is so by his own choice. Are whites forcing booze down his neck? As to his culture, his tribal elders, museums and books can tell him all he needs to know if he'll just get off his arse and read one!
BTW,
I'm of Irish blood. Does the English screwing-over of my great-great grand parents have ANY effect on me today?.......................NO!!!!!!!!
-
The Poles are crude anti-Semites.
What? so the poles that were gassed were anti-Semites? Or the Poles that help their own people (Jewish poles) escape the Nazis are anti-Semites?
Or even now the Poles that are fighting against terrorism and supporting Israel are anit-Semites too?
Geeez poor Ultra Requete, who is going tell him he is an anti-Semite :-\ ::)
-
im not a leftist. you are delusional if u think that!
and last i heard, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants hated eachother. i think that has an effect on you unless your one of those Wonderbread Irishmen.
-
Nobody gassed the Poles. Many were killed by being in the crossfire of the Nazis and Soviets, but there was no Final Solution for Poles.
MOST Poles enthusiastically helped the Nazis and became workers at Auschwitz. In fact, even the Polish anti-Nazi resistance helped the Nazis liquidate the ghettos of Jewish resistance fighters.
-
Nobody gassed the Poles. Many were killed by being in the crossfire of the Nazis and Soviets, but there was no Final Solution for Poles.
MOST Poles enthusiastically helped the Nazis and became workers at Auschwitz. In fact, even the Polish anti-Nazi resistance helped the Nazis liquidate the ghettos of Jewish resistance fighters.
They killed Polish Jewish as much as anyone
-
im not a leftist. you are delusional if u think that!
and last i heard, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants hated eachother. i think that has an effect on you unless your one of those Wonderbread Irishmen.
I didn't say YOU were a leftist. But your brain has been filled with leftist stupidity.
It's had ZERO effect on me whatsoever.
Nor has the Saxon invasion of Britain, the Roman invasion of Britain or the Norman invasion of Britain turned the British into fat alcoholics!
-
Yes, the Poles did kill Polish Jews.
-
im not a leftist. you are delusional if u think that!
and last i heard, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants hated eachother. i think that has an effect on you unless your one of those Wonderbread Irishmen.
I didn't say YOU were a leftist. But your brain has been filled with leftist stupidity.
It's had ZERO effect on me whatsoever.
Nor has the Saxon invasion of Britain, the Roman invasion of Britain or the Norman invasion of Britain turned the British into fat alcoholics!
Yes! Good points there Newman, as always 8;)
-
Yes, the Poles did kill Polish Jews.
Then how can all Poles be anti-Semite as you stated. If you admit some Poles are Jews. :::D
Or are they self haters too ;)
-
im not a leftist. you are delusional if u think that!
and last i heard, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants hated eachother. i think that has an effect on you unless your one of those Wonderbread Irishmen.
I didn't say YOU were a leftist. But your brain has been filled with leftist stupidity.
It's had ZERO effect on me whatsoever.
Nor has the Saxon invasion of Britain, the Roman invasion of Britain or the Norman invasion of Britain turned the British into fat alcoholics!
i agree with you in that we can't keep using the past to point fingers or even justify the present. but without the past, there would be no present and history is whats building our future. Natives are originally from Asia. if you look at Asian Americans, they are successful more often then Natives.
There is obviously a reason for that.
Is that a reason to blame anybody today? No! It happened hundreds of years ago and that kind of mentality is only harmful to Natives themselves. But to deny that history has a bad effect on those poor people is crazy!
Obviously Europeans taking over other Europeans is gonna have a different effect because its still European cultures meshing, not one culture stripping another. If you were Irish today, and Ireland had been taken over by Turks for hundreds of years and they were still in power there, im sure it would have an effect on you. You would either be dead, become a Islamic Turk yourself, or be living as the scum of Turk society. I can tell you Ottoman Turks taking over the Balkans and raping my relatives had a great effect and thanks to them YOU now have 2 muslim states in Europe. I've seen the effect of this first hand which is why I believe what i do so strongly.
PS - from what i know Celts were also colonized in the Balkans at one time. The reason their presence in our history is not perceived as negative is because they weren't there to make us Muslim, strip us of our culture, or rape our relatives. Thanks Irish!
-
Obviously Europeans taking over other Europeans is gonna have a different effect because its still European cultures meshing, not one culture stripping another.
100% true
-
PS - from what i know Celts were also colonized in the Balkans at one time. The reason their presence in our history is not perceived as negative is because they weren't there to make us Muslim, strip us of our culture, or rape our relatives. Thanks Irish!
[/quote]
They did?
Mmmm...must have been with the crusades? Because, I can't see otherwise how celts could possibly have taken a country thousands of miles away, but also, they were not tostrong a people(don't get me wrong here Newman 8;) :::D). So yes, i can only think of the crusades.
Anyway, thanks for that, i find it interesting ;)
-
i found a pretty good explination.. ill try 2 find more on the subject:
The first inhabitants of the region that was later to become Yugoslavia were the Illyrians; they were followed by the Celts in the 4th century BC and the Romans 100 years later. In the middle of the 6th century AD, Slavic tribes crossed the Danube and occupied much of the Balkan Peninsula. In 1217 the Serbian Kingdom - which included a lot of present-day Albania and northern Greece - asserted its independence from Byzantium, but in 1389 the Ottoman Empire cut that little party short, invading Serbia and settling in for the next 500 years. Throughout the 19th century the Serbs continued pushing back, and by 1878 they'd regained their independence.
-
400BC ! Wow!!!!! Way before the crusades! In fact, i can barely believe it! Something doesn't sound right?
-
'Kelts' comes from the greek word 'keltoi' meaning strangers. History records many people being described as 'kelts' but they are not neccessarily the people who we refer to as kelts today.
-
When people says something is Nazi they mean it's evil and racist.
*The colonialists killed hunderds of millions of people.
*I don't think people actually care if they would have a shower in a 200 milion people's lives.
*The thought they are supreme of the natives.
*They thought they have better culture.
The colonialists were evil.
-
When people says something is Nazi they mean it's evil and racist.
*The colonialists killed hunderds of millions of people.
*I don't think people actually care if they would have a shower in a 200 milion people's lives.
*The thought they are supreme of the natives.
*They thought they have better culture.
The colonialists were evil.
*They did not kill "hunderds of millions of people". There weren't that many people in the new world.
* They and their culture were superior to that of the natives. People who can cross oceans, make magnetic compasses and build universities and keep written records are superior to those who exist for thousands of years and cannot invent a wheel.
-
When people says something is Nazi they mean it's evil and racist.
*The colonialists killed hunderds of millions of people.
*I don't think people actually care if they would have a shower in a 200 milion people's lives.
*The thought they are supreme of the natives.
*They thought they have better culture.
The colonialists were evil.
*They did not kill "hunderds of millions of people". There weren't that many people in the new world.
* They and their culture were superior to that of the natives. People who can cross oceans, make magnetic compasses and build universities and keep written records are superior to those who exist for thousands of years and cannot invent a wheel.
*They killed 200 milions natives in America only. They also killed Milions of black slaves.
*The Indians were much more advenced in their Astronomy and sometimes they were more advenced in their way of building. The Chinese were much more advenced than the Europeans than and they even got America befor tham. They didn't had superior to that of the natives. Because superior culture suppose to be much more moral than the infrior one, well, the European culture than was evil and arrogant while the Native wasn't.
-
Really, I can't believe you actually justify the horrible things that Colonialist did.
-
Really, I can't believe you actually justify the horrible things that Colonialist did.
I'm not justifying it. I'm saying it's a fact of life and human developement. No people on Earth are the original inhabitants of their land. Hebrews displaced caananites, Kelts displaced neanderthals. Even the Australian aborigines of today displaced a previous race who lived in Australia before them.
EVERYBODY ON EARTH HAS DISPLACED SOMEBODY ELSE.
Nobody can expect to remain primitive and not be conquered. It's reality. Get used to it.
-
The case with the Hebrews is diffrent because the caananites marged with the Hebrews.
Besides, is your morality is 2000 years old morallity ?
-
Really, I can't believe you actually justify the horrible things that Colonialist did.
I'm not justifying it. I'm saying it's a fact of life and human developement. No people on Earth are the original inhabitants of their land. Hebrews displaced caananites, Kelts displaced neanderthals. Even the Australian aborigines of today displaced a previous race who lived in Australia before them.
EVERYBODY ON EARTH HAS DISPLACED SOMEBODY ELSE.
Nobody can expect to remain primitive and not be conquered. It's reality. Get used to it.
Voilà. Can we now cut the P.C.-crap please?
The Indians had temples were they offered thousands of people by pulling out their - still beating - hearths.
Do you call that a righteous culture?? No, it was also Nazi-barbarity.
-
The case with the Hebrews is diffrent because the caananites marged with the Hebrews.
Besides, is your morality is 2000 years old morallity ?
marged? what do you mean?
-
Newman's morality is Kahanist real thinking.
Look at Kahane's videos.
He says just the same about the arabs.
"I am the only Israeli that respects the arabs.
How can an arab be an Israeli citizen, if he sings..."
He was right: Israel must expel all arabs.
Don't you agree , Dexter?
-
The case with the Hebrews is diffrent because the caananites marged with the Hebrews.
Besides, is your morality is 2000 years old morallity ?
marged? what do you mean?
The Cnaanites mixed with Hebrews until there was no diffrent between them and Hebrews. Sometimes the Hebrews converted whole people to Judaism and than mixed with them.
He was right: Israel must expel all arabs.
Don't you agree , Dexter?
I don't think expeling the Arabs is rational thing. I support this:
http://www.hayozma.org/Default.aspx?lng=Eng
-
The case with the Hebrews is diffrent because the caananites marged with the Hebrews.
Besides, is your morality is 2000 years old morallity ?
They didn't merge. There's no trace of them or their culture or their religion.
Yet, Indians and aborigines have merged with europeans but maintained their culture and religion. So The Jews are worse than europeans according to your own reasoning.
The British colonists were far kinder than any previous empire. Compare British rule to that of the Romans, Turks, Greeks or Egyptians.
-
The case with the Hebrews is diffrent because the caananites marged with the Hebrews.
Besides, is your morality is 2000 years old morallity ?
They didn't merge. There's no trace of them or their culture or their religion.
Yet, Indians and aborigines have merged with europeans but maintained their culture and religion. So The Jews are worse than europeans according to your own reasoning.
The British colonists were far kinder than any previous empire. Compare British rule to that of the Romans, Turks, Greeks or Egyptians.
They did marged. The Hebrews didn't destroyed the Cna'anites but converted them to Judaism and marged we tham. Many words in Hebrew are of the Cna'anite god's names : EL (G-d (in general)), SHACHAR (Sunrise) etc'.
It's so not reasnoble to compare empires of the 18th century AD to those of the 1 century BCE. The Europeans were'nt kinder than the empires you mantion. The Greeks mostly gave you religiouse freedom, the Romans too. The Turks and the Egyptians were much better than the French and the British.
-
The case with the Hebrews is diffrent because the caananites marged with the Hebrews.
Besides, is your morality is 2000 years old morallity ?
They didn't merge. There's no trace of them or their culture or their religion.
Yet, Indians and aborigines have merged with europeans but maintained their culture and religion. So The Jews are worse than europeans according to your own reasoning.
The British colonists were far kinder than any previous empire. Compare British rule to that of the Romans, Turks, Greeks or Egyptians.
They did marged. The Hebrews didn't destroyed the Cna'anites but converted them to Judaism and marged we tham. Many words in Hebrew are of the Cna'anite G-d's names : EL (G-d (in general)), SHACHAR (Sunrise) etc'.
It's so not reasnoble to compare empires of the 18th century AD to those of the 1 century BCE. The Europeans were'nt kinder than the empires you mantion. The Greeks mostly gave you religiouse freedom, the Romans too. The Turks and the Egyptians were much better than the French and the British.
Rubbish!
Even black academics acknowledge that the British empire was 10 times more benevolent than ANY of the older empires. Britain provided infrastructure, education and medical fascilities the apes NEVER had.
Need I remind you that Britain gave up it's colonies volluntarily. They were never defeated militarily.
Name ONE ancient empire that gave up a colony of it's own accord.
-
Again, you CAN'T COMPARE EMPIRES THAT HAVE 2000 YEARS DIFFRENCES.
The Romans didn't murderd 200 milion people. When they took land they make one of the natives as a king and gave the natives their living space for them to serve in the Roman army (10 years). The British may built good stratcture, the Romans, Greeks, Turks, Egyptian (etc'..) too and the Romans/Greeks gave all the people who lived in their empires the same rights as everyone else have. At least in most cases.
The fact that the British gave up their colonies volluntarily was because the British had a really hard loss in the WWII and if they wouldn't give up their colonies their country will collepse economiclly. Furthermore, the fact that they gave up their colonies is compared to that the Germans gave Israel money for the Holocaust. The French murderd half a milion Arabs in 1956 when they didn't want to retreat Algiria.
-
The colonialists were evil.
Evil, bad nasty people grrrrrrrr, bringing civilized life to apes. ::)
-
Again, you CAN'T COMPARE EMPIRES THAT HAVE 2000 YEARS DIFFRENCES.
The Romans didn't murderd 200 milion people. When they took land they make one of the natives as a king and gave the natives their living space for them to serve in the Roman army (10 years). The British may built good stratcture, the Romans, Greeks, Turks, Egyptian (etc'..) too and the Romans/Greeks gave all the people who lived in their empires the same rights as everyone else have. At least in most cases.
The fact that the British gave up their colonies volluntarily was because the British had a really hard loss in the WWII and if they wouldn't give up their colonies their country will collepse economiclly. Furthermore, the fact that they gave up their colonies is compared to that the Germans gave Israel money for the Holocaust. The French murderd half a milion Arabs in 1956 when they didn't want to retreat Algiria.
When did the Brits or any europeans murder 200 million people???
Romans gave people equal rights??????????????
Britain made money from it's colonies. It was in it's economic interest to keep them, not give them up!
Dexter, you're being brainwashed with leftist crap.
-
When people says something is Nazi they mean it's evil and racist.
*The colonialists killed hunderds of millions of people.
*I don't think people actually care if they would have a shower in a 200 milion people's lives.
*The thought they are supreme of the natives.
*They thought they have better culture.
The colonialists were evil.
*They did not kill "hunderds of millions of people". There weren't that many people in the new world.
* They and their culture were superior to that of the natives. People who can cross oceans, make magnetic compasses and build universities and keep written records are superior to those who exist for thousands of years and cannot invent a wheel.
*They killed 200 milions natives in America only. They also killed Milions of black slaves.
*The Indians were much more advenced in their Astronomy and sometimes they were more advenced in their way of building. The Chinese were much more advenced than the Europeans than and they even got America befor tham. They didn't had superior to that of the natives. Because superior culture suppose to be much more moral than the infrior one, well, the European culture than was evil and arrogant while the Native wasn't.
I agree.
-
When people says something is Nazi they mean it's evil and racist.
*The colonialists killed hunderds of millions of people.
*I don't think people actually care if they would have a shower in a 200 milion people's lives.
*The thought they are supreme of the natives.
*They thought they have better culture.
The colonialists were evil.
*They did not kill "hunderds of millions of people". There weren't that many people in the new world.
* They and their culture were superior to that of the natives. People who can cross oceans, make magnetic compasses and build universities and keep written records are superior to those who exist for thousands of years and cannot invent a wheel.
*They killed 200 milions natives in America only. They also killed Milions of black slaves.
*The Indians were much more advenced in their Astronomy and sometimes they were more advenced in their way of building. The Chinese were much more advenced than the Europeans than and they even got America befor tham. They didn't had superior to that of the natives. Because superior culture suppose to be much more moral than the infrior one, well, the European culture than was evil and arrogant while the Native wasn't.
I agree.
There were NEVER anywhere near 200 million souls in the Americas before European settlement!
As for killing that many..............do you have any idea how many soldiers it would take to kill 200 million people in the pre-industrial age? Euope didn't have the manpower toi kill 200 million!!!!!!
What absolute leftist BS you're spouting!
-
Need I remind you that Britain gave up it's colonies voluntarily. They were never defeated militarily.
Really? Need I remind you of the American War of Independence newman??? The IRA in Ireland and the Irgun in Israel also come to mind. The Boers were able to fight and gain independence at various periods and Rhodesia was not given up it seceded against Britains will. Its colonies in Africa were given up voluntarily but the independence movements and military actions against the British there were also big factors, they knew it was not feasible for them to remain ahold of them and they generally left rather than stay and fight.
-
Again, you CAN'T COMPARE EMPIRES THAT HAVE 2000 YEARS DIFFRENCES.
The Romans didn't murderd 200 milion people. When they took land they make one of the natives as a king and gave the natives their living space for them to serve in the Roman army (10 years). The British may built good stratcture, the Romans, Greeks, Turks, Egyptian (etc'..) too and the Romans/Greeks gave all the people who lived in their empires the same rights as everyone else have. At least in most cases.
The fact that the British gave up their colonies volluntarily was because the British had a really hard loss in the WWII and if they wouldn't give up their colonies their country will collepse economiclly. Furthermore, the fact that they gave up their colonies is compared to that the Germans gave Israel money for the Holocaust. The French murderd half a milion Arabs in 1956 when they didn't want to retreat Algiria.
When did the Brits or any europeans murder 200 million people???
Romans gave people equal rights??????????????
Britain made money from it's colonies. It was in it's economic interest to keep them, not give them up!
Dexter, you're being brainwashed with leftist crap.
In America and Africa they killed 200 milions of people. The colonies may gave money but it also needed money to feed the people who lived there, build buildings, recover what has being destroyed by the Nazis at the WWII etc'.
The Romans gave every man or woman who lived in their empire a Roman citizenship and equal right. You should know that.
Oh, and newman, not everyone that doesn't agree with you is leftist, OK? You should understand European were evil and if you deny this than you are deluded.
As for killing that many..............do you have any idea how many soldiers it would take to kill 200 million people in the pre-industrial age? Euope didn't have the manpower toi kill 200 million!!!!!!
It wasn't by the Army but by independed white men and the Army.
-
Yes it wasn't only the British who killed 200 milions. The # of killes by the British + the # of killes by French + The # of killes by spain is 200 millions less or more.
-
Need I remind you that Britain gave up it's colonies voluntarily. They were never defeated militarily.
Really? Need I remind you of the American War of Independence newman??? The IRA in Ireland and the Irgun in Israel also come to mind. The Boers were able to fight and gain independence at various periods and Rhodesia was not given up it seceded against Britains will. Its colonies in Africa were given up voluntarily but the independence movements and military actions against the British there were also big factors, they knew it was not feasible for them to remain ahold of them and they generally left rather than stay and fight.
Thats two out of two thirds of the globe!
Resistance movements all failed against the British. Name one post war colony where Brits suffered heavy losses. There are none.
-
When people says something is Nazi they mean it's evil and racist.
*The colonialists killed hunderds of millions of people.
*I don't think people actually care if they would have a shower in a 200 milion people's lives.
*The thought they are supreme of the natives.
*They thought they have better culture.
The colonialists were evil.
*They did not kill "hunderds of millions of people". There weren't that many people in the new world.
* They and their culture were superior to that of the natives. People who can cross oceans, make magnetic compasses and build universities and keep written records are superior to those who exist for thousands of years and cannot invent a wheel.
*They killed 200 milions natives in America only. They also killed Milions of black slaves.
*The Indians were much more advenced in their Astronomy and sometimes they were more advenced in their way of building. The Chinese were much more advenced than the Europeans than and they even got America befor tham. They didn't had superior to that of the natives. Because superior culture suppose to be much more moral than the infrior one, well, the European culture than was evil and arrogant while the Native wasn't.
I agree.
There were NEVER anywhere near 200 million souls in the Americas before European settlement!
As for killing that many..............do you have any idea how many soldiers it would take to kill 200 million people in the pre-industrial age? Euope didn't have the manpower toi kill 200 million!!!!!!
What absolute leftist BS you're spouting!
I agree with Newman. There are only 300 million people in America NOW! There were never that many natives. Although horrific things were certainly done to them. But they weren't always conquered by alot of violence. Read Broken Spears the Aztec acount of the Spanish colonialists arriving. It was amazing how easy, how few men, and how little violence it took to conquer them. When the spanish first arrived on horses the natives thought they were monsters. But Aztecs soon made allies with them against their other enemies and were able to conquer pretty quickly.
Slaves were also considered valuable property. They weren't cheap and most people could not afford them. Why would someone kill a person they paid lots of money to buy?
-
Again, you CAN'T COMPARE EMPIRES THAT HAVE 2000 YEARS DIFFRENCES.
The Romans didn't murderd 200 milion people. When they took land they make one of the natives as a king and gave the natives their living space for them to serve in the Roman army (10 years). The British may built good stratcture, the Romans, Greeks, Turks, Egyptian (etc'..) too and the Romans/Greeks gave all the people who lived in their empires the same rights as everyone else have. At least in most cases.
The fact that the British gave up their colonies volluntarily was because the British had a really hard loss in the WWII and if they wouldn't give up their colonies their country will collepse economiclly. Furthermore, the fact that they gave up their colonies is compared to that the Germans gave Israel money for the Holocaust. The French murderd half a milion Arabs in 1956 when they didn't want to retreat Algiria.
When did the Brits or any europeans murder 200 million people???
Romans gave people equal rights??????????????
Britain made money from it's colonies. It was in it's economic interest to keep them, not give them up!
Dexter, you're being brainwashed with leftist crap.
In America and Africa they killed 200 milions of people. The colonies may gave money but it also needed money to feed the people who lived there, build buildings, recover what has being destroyed by the Nazis at the WWII etc'.
The Romans gave every man or woman who lived in their empire a Roman citizenship and equal right. You should know that.
Oh, and newman, not everyone that doesn't agree with you is leftist, OK? You should understand European were evil and if you deny this than you are deluded.
As for killing that many..............do you have any idea how many soldiers it would take to kill 200 million people in the pre-industrial age? Euope didn't have the manpower toi kill 200 million!!!!!!
It wasn't by the Army but by independed white men and the Army.
200 million is a bogus figure. It's not possible to wipe out that many without modern industrial age weapons. Even with muzzle loading rifles the europeans would have needed 100 million men in the field. Europe never had more than a few million of it's nationals in it's colonies.
Where do you hear this crap??
BTW,
Without europe AND european Australians, Israel would still be occupied by turks and you'd have NO state. Think about that before you condemn colonial europe as 'evil'.
-
Need I remind you that Britain gave up it's colonies voluntarily. They were never defeated militarily.
Really? Need I remind you of the American War of Independence newman??? The IRA in Ireland and the Irgun in Israel also come to mind. The Boers were able to fight and gain independence at various periods and Rhodesia was not given up it seceded against Britains will. Its colonies in Africa were given up voluntarily but the independence movements and military actions against the British there were also big factors, they knew it was not feasible for them to remain ahold of them and they generally left rather than stay and fight.
Thats two out of two thirds of the globe!
Resistance movements all failed against the British. Name one post war colony where Brits suffered heavy losses. There are none.
All resistance movements failed only if you put a convenient cut off date of when those movements were allowed to take place. Successful military resistance movements took place in the US, Ireland, and Israel before the post-war period.
-
Well than you are wrong. There are only 300 milion people in the USA only not in whole America. There are 900 Milion people in America now.
200 million is a bogus figure. It's not possible to wipe out that many without modern industrial age weapons. Even with muzzle loading rifles the europeans would have needed 100 million men in the field. Europe never had more than a few million of it's nationals in it's colonies.
Where do you hear this crap??
BTW,
Without europe AND european Australians, Israel would still be occupied by turks and you'd have NO state. Think about that before you condemn colonial europe as 'evil'.
200 Milions were killed by physical power, reducing Indian living space and other factors. I heard it if I remember correctly in the History Channle.
Actually, I would prefer not to have a country if it would save millions of people of the viciose colonialism. Furthermore, the british rule wasn't better to the Jews than the Turkish one.
-
Need I remind you that Britain gave up it's colonies voluntarily. They were never defeated militarily.
Really? Need I remind you of the American War of Independence newman??? The IRA in Ireland and the Irgun in Israel also come to mind. The Boers were able to fight and gain independence at various periods and Rhodesia was not given up it seceded against Britains will. Its colonies in Africa were given up voluntarily but the independence movements and military actions against the British there were also big factors, they knew it was not feasible for them to remain ahold of them and they generally left rather than stay and fight.
Thats two out of two thirds of the globe!
Resistance movements all failed against the British. Name one post war colony where Brits suffered heavy losses. There are none.
All resistance movements failed only if you put a convenient cut off date of when those movements were allowed to take place. Successful military resistance movements took place in the US, Ireland, and Israel before the post-war period.
Israel was not a colony. Britain was a league of nations custodian.
Forget the white colonies. I'm talking of the ape colonies.
-
200 Milions were killed by physical power, reducing Indian living space and other factors. I heard it if I remember correctly in the History Channle.
The same History Channel that claims there were never Hebrews in Egypt and that there was no King David!
Actually, I would prefer not to have a country if it would save millions of people of the viciose colonialism. Furthermore, the british rule wasn't better to the Jews than the Turkish one.
That's the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum!
-
What the Hell!!! Europeans EVIL!!!?????
Tell me Dex, what about the rest of the world....china, india, peru, congo? What about those places and their murdering and killing of their fellow and neighbours!? Oh yes i forgot...they were still in the dark ages, and we don't have those accounts.
Dex, you know that's leftist BS, you're a smart kid, and you need to question their nonsense. 200 million! Can you please give me those links.-in fact, i bet you 100 shekels, that at that time in history, there were not even 200 million "natives" in africa and america COMBINED!
-
What the Hell!!! Europeans EVIL!!!?????
Tell me Dex, what about the rest of the world....china, india, peru, congo? What about those places and their murdering and killing of their fellow and neighbours!? Oh yes i forgot...they were still in the dark ages, and we don't have those accounts.
Dex, you know that's leftist BS, you're a smart kid, and you need to question their nonsense. 200 million! Can you please give me those links.-in fact, i bet you 100 shekels, that at that time in history, there were not even 200 million "natives" in africa and america COMBINED!
That's the point I've been trying to make!
What about this one........"Furthermore, the british rule wasn't better to the Jews than the Turkish one."..???
Can you believe that?
I know the Brits wern't saints but "no better" than centuries of rule by Turk-muSSlim pigs?
The British empire Liberated Jerusalem after 1100+ years of muSSlim rule. The Australians were the first ones in there. The first army to enter the Holy city in over 1100 years who didn't kill any Jews!!! And we're as bad as the Turks????????
The leftist school teachers in Israel need killing!
-
What the Hell!!! Europeans EVIL!!!?????
Tell me Dex, what about the rest of the world....china, india, peru, congo? What about those places and their murdering and killing of their fellow and neighbours!? Oh yes i forgot...they were still in the dark ages, and we don't have those accounts.
Dex, you know that's leftist BS, you're a smart kid, and you need to question their nonsense. 200 million! Can you please give me those links.-in fact, i bet you 100 shekels, that at that time in history, there were not even 200 million "natives" in africa and america COMBINED!
That's the point I've been trying to make!
What about this one........"Furthermore, the british rule wasn't better to the Jews than the Turkish one."..???
Can you believe that?
I know the Brits wern't saints but "no better" than centuries of rule by Turk-muSSlim pigs?
The British empire Liberated Jerusalem after 100+ years of muSSlim rule. The Australians were the first ones in there. The first army to enter the Holy city in over 1100 years who didn't kill any Jews!!! And we're as bad as the Turks????????
The leftist school teachers in Israel need killing!
THE PC SCUM NEEDS A LITTLE KILLING EVERYWHERE
-
What the Hell!!! Europeans EVIL!!!?????
Tell me Dex, what about the rest of the world....china, india, peru, congo? What about those places and their murdering and killing of their fellow and neighbours!? Oh yes i forgot...they were still in the dark ages, and we don't have those accounts.
Dex, you know that's leftist BS, you're a smart kid, and you need to question their nonsense. 200 million! Can you please give me those links.-in fact, i bet you 100 shekels, that at that time in history, there were not even 200 million "natives" in africa and america COMBINED!
That's the point I've been trying to make!
What about this one........"Furthermore, the british rule wasn't better to the Jews than the Turkish one."..???
Can you believe that?
I know the Brits wern't saints but "no better" than centuries of rule by Turk-muSSlim pigs?
The British empire Liberated Jerusalem after 100+ years of muSSlim rule. The Australians were the first ones in there. The first army to enter the Holy city in over 1100 years who didn't kill any Jews!!! And we're as bad as the Turks????????
The leftist school teachers in Israel need killing!
THE PC SCUM NEEDS A LITTLE KILLING EVERYWHERE
Here here!!!!
Ill take first watch O0 :::D
Dex, I think you need to consult Chaim
Look at what our Serbian brothers endured under those filthy turks...and i can bet you, the situation for the Jews were not all that pretty either.
Dexter, have you considered home schooling, I would hate to see such a bright young man like yourself to become a zombie! :(
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
well said O0
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
well said O0
Raul, You're always siding with turd worlders.
I also begin to wonder if you're a Kahanist.
I hope you're not a NK-'Jew'
Colonialism happened OK?
If you don't like it , then get out of there ,
and come back to Europe.
OK?
-
Some answeres:
Newman said:
The same History Channel that claims there were never Hebrews in Egypt and that there was no King David!
The History Channel shows us evidence and reallity. Since there are no evidence of the Hebrews being in Egypt and that there was a king name David it's reasonble to say the Hebrews were'nt in Egypt and that there was no such king name David. Proove I have a brother, there are no evidences I have but you can't disproove it. But because I have no evidences you have no reasonble reason to believe I have a brother.
David, acorrding to the Bible lived around 12th century BCE, while it's 3200 years old and it's very hard to be sure what happend on 100% it's much easier to know what happen between the 15th century and the 19th century, when the Indians were massacard by the White men.
That's the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum!
That's sad, Newman.
A. I think I have high moral feelings and I would prefer Milions of people wouldn't die, murdered, massacared and there wouldn't be an Israel. If there were no Colonialism the Arabs wouldn't be our enemies probablly. Nazi Germany wouldn't rise. Zionism wouldn't exist. The holocaust would never happened etc'.
B. The Turks weren't better than the British and they weren't worse. While the Turks gave us enter Jerusalem and live there and befor that when Christian nations controled here we wouldn't allowed to enter. Gave us more respect than the Brits etc'. The British were Antisimetics, they published the White Paper of 1939 and never gave Holocaust survivers to get in. They were pro Arabs (the Turks too, but at least they are Muslim so you can understand why) etc'.
The British empire Liberated Jerusalem after 1100+ years of muSSlim rule. The Australians were the first ones in there. The first army to enter the Holy city in over 1100 years who didn't kill any Jews!!! And we're as bad as the Turks
Yes, you are bad as the turks and that's why we used terror to destroy your colonialism on our land. The Turks and you were equil, the Turks treat us just as the british did, maybe a bit worse but the British refused to give the Jews enter Pales-tine of the British Mandate. The Arab gave us Pales-tine at 1919 but because of the British-French stupid Sykes-Picot Agreement we lost it and than the Arabs became crazy and started pogroming us.
Boeregeneraal:
What the Hell!!! Europeans EVIL!!!?
I said Europeans were evil. Some Europeans are evil also today.
Tell me Dex, what about the rest of the world....china, india, peru, congo? What about those places and their murdering and killing of their fellow and neighbours!? Oh yes i forgot...they were still in the dark ages, and we don't have those accounts.
China didn't killed that much until the Colonialists came. The Chinese were very advenced. The Japanese on the other hand were Nazi animels with what they did to the Chinese. Kongo was a tribial society, Peru too, compared to what the Europeans did under cover of "Jesus" and "Elightenism" killed milions of people. So, give me a break, OK ?
Dex, you know that's leftist BS, you're a smart kid, and you need to question their nonsense. 200 million! Can you please give me those links.-in fact, i bet you 100 shekels, that at that time in history, there were not even 200 million "natives" in africa and america COMBINED!
It was on television. Anyway, it's a fact Europeans killed Milions of black slaves and Millions of natives in their war against them. The dirty war Britain fought to maintain its control of Kenya was tantamount to genocide.
The entire Kikuyu nation (the largest national group within Kenya) was considered to be under the sway of the Mau Mau insurgents, and treated accordingly.
Hundreds of thousands of men were sent to prison camps, while almost the entire female population (along with children and elderly) were imprisoned in fortified “villages” set up by the British, surrounded by spiked trenches and barbed wire, the site of torture, starvation and forced slave labour.
Indeed, at one point or another almost the entire Kikuyu population of 1.5 million were detained.
Such are the crimes of colonialism.
Earlier this year i read an interesting book – Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson – which recounts and explains the most important episodes of this dirty war. From my position of ignorance, it was a good introduction to the history of the anti-colonial struggle in Kenya, and (amongst its strengths) Anderson’s book provides ample description of the role class struggle within the Kikuyu nation played. (Indeed, while Mau Mau killed almost two thousand African collaborators, only thirty two European settlers were killed during the entire rebellion - estimates of the number of Mau Mau killed range from 12,000 to 20,000.)
As a liberal “coming to terms” with Britain’s colonial crimes, Anderson’s book works. There is an unfortunate bias, though, in that the thread he follows is the list of incidents around which men were sentenced to die by the settler government (merely being a member of or associating with members of the Mau Mau was a capital crime). As he notes, the number of men sent to the gallows in Kenya was “more than double the number of executions carried out against convicted terrorists in Algeria, and many more than in all the other British colonial emergencies of the post-war period – in Palestine, Malaya, Cyprus and Aden.”
The criminal laws the police had to enforce were originally planned to be quite similar to the British codes. However, the colonial rulers soon decided that preference should be given to introduce Indian law in Kenya since, unlike British law, Indian law was codified and thus thought off to be a better instrument to control the African population. The Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Police Act which were introduced in colonial Kenya, were all imported from British India. Next to this imported legal system, the British took into account customary laws: cases involving Africans were guided by native regulations, so far as applicable, and inasmuch as they were reconcilable with British standards of legal morality. The activities of the police involved night patrols in the urban areas, the detection of property crimes, the enforcement of labor laws on settler farms, the execution of death sentences, and, more than anything else, the protection of European property and persons. The enforcement of minor offenses took up most of the police time. In 1937, for instance, no less than 6,000 Africans were prosecuted for being resident in townships without permission, or because of failure to produce a pass, over 3,000 for crimes against property, more than 4,700 for not paying hut taxes, and more than 1,000 for vagrancy. Despite these impressive figures, however, many laws were not enforced by the police who ran their operations quite independently from the colonial legal administration.
Sources:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zcolpol.html
http://sketchythoughts.blogspot.com/2006/12/kenya-and-crimes-of-colonialism.html
That's Kenya only.
-
About the Indians:
MILITARY CAMPAIGN AGAINST POWHATAN
During the summer of 1610 in Jamestown, the Governor, Thomas West De la Warr had directed Powhatan to return several runaway Englishman. It appears Powhatan did not respond in a satisfactory manner. De la Warr felt this was sufficient reason to conduct a military campaign against Powhatan. George Percy, brother to the Earl of Northumberland and De la Warr's second in command headed up the military action against Powhatan. The following is Percy's description of the actions that took place;
Drawing my soldiers into battle, placing a Captain or Lieutenant at every file, we marched towards the Indian Town...and then we fell upon them, put some fifteen or sixteen to the sword and almost the rest to flight...My Lieutenant brought with him the Queen and her children and one Indian prisoner for which I taxed him because he had spared them. His answer was that having them now in custody I might do with them what I pleased. Upon the same I caused the Indians head to be cut off, then disperesed my files, appointing my soldiers to burn their houses and to cut down their corn growing about the town. With the Indians dead or disperesed, their village destroyed, and their food supplies laid to waste, Percy sent out another raiding party to the the same to another Indian Town and then marched to his boats with the Queen and her children in tow. There, however his soldiers "did begin to murmur because the Queen and her children were spared." This seemed a reasonable complaint to Percy, so he called a council together and "it was agreed upon to putt the children to death THE WHICH WAS EFFECTED BY THROWING THEM OVERBOARD, SHOOTING OUT THEIR BRAINS IN THE WATER." Upon his return to Jamestown, however, Percy was informed that Governor De la Warr was unhappy with him because he had not yet killed the Queen. Advised by his chief Lieutenant that it would be best to burn her alive, Perry instead decided to end his day of "so much bloodshed" with a final act of mercy:instead of burning her, he had the queen quickly killed by stabbing her to death.
JAMESTOWN LEGISLATION AGAINST THE INDIANS
In 1623, the Jamestown Colonists passed legislation that indicated their hostility toward the Indians. The following acts are those that deal with the Indians.
Act 23: " that every dwelling house shall be pallizaded in for defence against the Indians.
Act 24: "that no man go or send abroad without a sufficient party well armed.
Act 25: "that men go not towork in the ground with out their arms (and a centenell upon them).
Act 26: "that the inhabitants go not aboard ships or upon any other occasions in such numbers, as thereby to weaken and endanger the plantations.
Act 27: "that the commander of every plantation take care that there be sufficient powder and ammunition within the plantation under his command and their pieces fixt and their arms complete.
Act 29: "that no commander of any plantation do either him-selfe or suffer others to spend powder unnecessarily in drinking or entertainments.
Act 32:"that at the beginning of July next the inhabitants of every corporation shall fall upon their adjoining savages, as we did last year, those that shall be hurt upon services, to be cured at the public charge; in case any to be lamed to be maintained by the country according to his person and quality.
Finally in 1655 the legislatures first act for that session was to pass an Act in the Indians favor. The Assembly admitted they were harsh on the Indians and they had attacked the white man to protect their land and way of life. The first Act: for every eight wolves heads the Indian brought in, the Great Man would receive a cow. The second Act: if the Indian families would bring in their children to live with a white family, the children would be educated and civilized and not be used as slaves. The third Act: it addressed the Indians land in that he could not bargin away his land to an Englishman without the permission of the Assembly, and his land was protected from unfair seizure.
Based on the treatment the English inflicted on the Powhatans when they arrived in 1608,the colonists, after the Revolutionary War continued the same methods that had served the English so well as indicated in the following stories as the United States moved west.
SAND CREEK MASSACRE (SE COLORADO).
In 1864 Col Chivington ( a former clergyman that had political ambitions) was appointed the territorial military commander in Colorado. After some isolated incidents with the Indians, Chivington sent out detachments to burn and destroy Indian villages, the Cheyenne, Arapahos, Sioux, Kiowa's, and Comanches's struck back. this give Chivington the opportunity that he was looking for, to launch a full scale attack on the Indians.
On November 29, 1864, Chivington deployed his command, about seven hundred solders with howitzers around Black Kettle's village on Sand Creek. Black Kettle was under the impression that he was at peace with the Americans; he ran up the American Flag and assured his people that all was well. the troops opened fire and charged. The Indians scattered in all directions. Chivington had made it clear that he wanted no prisoners, hie policy was "to kill and scalp all, little and big". Nits make lice he was fond of saying. Interpreter John Smith later testified: they were scalped, their brains knocked out; the men used their knives, ripped open women, clubbed little children, knocked them in the head with their guns, beat their brains out, mutilated their bodies in every sense of the word. Two hundred Cheyenne's, two thirds of them women and children perished. Nine chiefs died, however Chief Black Kettle escaped.( Only to be murdered later by Custer).
-
:'(
Dexter's brain has been poisoned by the leftist media and education system. I'm not even responding anymore. When somebody claims that democratic Britain (for all it's many faults and sins) is worse than the Ottoman Turks or that Nazism wouldn't have arisen if not for european colonisation of the turd world, or that muSSlims wouldn't hate Jews if it wern't for europe..........it's time to quit wasting time on such utter stupidity. It's like trying to argue with a holocaust denier or a conspiracy theorist!
-
I admire you Dexter, you are very young and have learned a lot.
-
I admire you Dexter, you are very young and have learned a lot.
No.
Dexter used to be smart.
You on the other hand were insane from day 1.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
-
:'(
Dexter's brain has been poisoned by the leftist media and education system. I'm not even responding anymore. When somebody claims that democratic Britain (for all it's many faults and sins) is worse than the Ottoman Turks or that Nazism wouldn't have arisen if not for european colonisation of the turd world, or that muSSlims wouldn't hate Jews if it wern't for europe..........it's time to quit wasting time on such utter stupidity. It's like trying to argue with a holocaust denier or a conspiracy theorist!
OK newman, whatever. It's always the "Bolshiviks" or the Leftists. What, you can't believe I can think for myself things that don't fit you agemda ? I can't really believe someone in the 20th century (besides of the Nazis) thinks that Colonialism isn't evil and it's justified. The fact that British was an empire that enslaved many but happened to be democratic doesn't make it better. The Nazism wouldn't rise because history, my freind, is dynamic. So every small ditail effects the whole History. I didn't claimed that because of Colonialism Nazi Germany rised, if you understand thet than I feel sorry for you. I meant that if colonialism wasn't made, there wasn't USA, Germany may won the WWI, if the WWI would even happen etc'.
The Turks weren't better than the British and weren't worse. That's my opinon.
-
I admire you Dexter, you are very young and have learned a lot.
No.
Dexter used to be smart.
You on the other hand were insane from day 1.
Newman, please don't be close minded. I thought it's a disscusion and I broght evidence on how Colonialism was evil. Proove me wrong and I will say I am.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Agreed, well said newman. O0
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
then go to (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Schwarzwald_1.jpg/261px-Schwarzwald_1.jpg)Schwarzwald
plenty of place to hunt Jew-haters.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
then go to (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Schwarzwald_1.jpg/261px-Schwarzwald_1.jpg)Schwarzwald
plenty of place to hunt Jew-haters.
yup, I've also been to the Schwarzwald it's not my favorite spot, let's put it that way.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians have technology because they traded with us,
Tsar Peter the Great came to the Netherlands himself to learn how to build ships.
You're wrong.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians have technology because they traded with us,
Tsar Peter the Great came to the Netherlands himself to learn how to build ships.
You're wrong.
Yes, they did. What's your point ? You just prooved what I'm saying O0
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians were civilised whites with a technology base of their own.
Indians and negros didn't even invent the wheel and were stoneage!
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians were civilised whites with a technology base of their own.
Indians and negros didn't even invent the wheel and were stoneage!
yup, they were living as primitive as it gets, until they became civilized.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians were civilised whites with a technology base of their own.
Indians and negros didn't even invent the wheel and were stoneage!
Blacks were primitves, true. The Indians built Pyramides and have other types of technology. You don't have to have weastern type of technology to be advenced. Even the gunfire is Chinese, and the British did colonised China.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians have technology because they traded with us,
Tsar Peter the Great came to the Netherlands himself to learn how to build ships.
You're wrong.
Yes, they did. What's your point ? You just prooved what I'm saying O0
No! my point is that 'the poor colonised' were not even considering to learn our technologies, because they were technologically less advanced.
How does that come? They had other interests.
Well , bad luck for them, they were eradicated.
This will happen with people like you too.
Besides: Jews have been involved in colonisation too, so don't blame all of it on us.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians were civilised whites with a technology base of their own.
Indians and negros didn't even invent the wheel and were stoneage!
Blacks were primitves, true. The Indians built Pyramides and have other types of technology. You don't have to have weastern type of technology to be advenced. Even the gunfire is Chinese, and the British did colonised China.
THANKYOU!!
That proves my point!!!!!
China advanced......that's WHY it wasn't colonised and it's people dispossessed.
BTW,
The indians didn't have the wheel. Without the wheel, pyramids don't mean spit! The wheel is the basis of ALL human advancement.
-
Without colonialism, perhpas I'd be in Europe.
And you cannot say that murdering natives is good, even if it happened to bring some good. Take this example: The nazis killed milionos of people, but some survived, and some couples may have met while they were fleeing. Had there been no nazism, they wouldn't have met while fleeing, no marriage, and so their children would have never been born. Would you say Nazism is good? NO
Another example: Lets suppose a couple has decided to have only two children. One day a child rapist attacks their house, rapist a girl and kills her. After a time, the parents decide to have just another baby to replace the one muerdered. Hadn't the rapist done that, the new baby would never been born!!!! Would you say a child rapist and murderer is good for that? NO
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians have technology because they traded with us,
Tsar Peter the Great came to the Netherlands himself to learn how to build ships.
You're wrong.
Yes, they did. What's your point ? You just prooved what I'm saying O0
No! my point is that 'the poor colonised' were not even considering to learn our technologies, because they were technologically less advanced.
How does that come? They had other interests.
Well , bad luck for them, they were eradicated.
This will happen with people like you too.
Besides: Jews have been involved in colonisation too, so don't blame all of it on us.
Why does they have to learn your culture ? You can't treat other people just as humans ? Not only colonialism destroyed millions of people but it also dissapeard a lot of cultures.
Do you people have no feeling or moral ?
About the Jews, that's true but the Christian European states are the one who started colonialism. And the fact that I'm Jewish doesn't make me want defence all actions that Jews did.
THANKYOU!!
That proves my point!!!!!
China advanced......that's WHY it wasn't colonised and it's people dispossessed.
BTW,
The indians didn't have the wheel. Without the wheel, pyramids don't mean spit! The wheel is the basis of ALL human advancement.
Prooves your point that Colonialism is justefied ?
China was advanced befor the Europeans, yet, the europeans colonised it and killed many Chinese.
The Indians did have the wheel, a wheel doesn't have to be Car's wheel. The Pyramids means much more that you would ever imagin, no one knows how the Egyptians and the Indians build it.
-
Colonislism is evil. I don't know if it can be called nazism. But remember that there are many evils that are different from nazism. Not all murderers and criminals can be called nazis, but they are criminals nevertheless.
You're a hypocrit!
If you hate colonisation so much, leave your house with electricity and running water and go live in the bush like a stinking indian. If you don't you're talking out of your arse!
In fact I'd like to live in the European forests, but they have destroyed them all. And perhaps I'd have been glad if Venezzians had came here instead of other Europeans...I claim Venezzia is a blessed city, but I won't debate with someone who hates me.
It's because you've got no answer.
Without european colonisation you'd have NO electricity, NO telephone, NO cars, NO indoor plumbing and NO computers! So stop using your computer right now or agree that colonisation was good. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Technology spread over the world not because Colonialism. Russia have weastern Technology altough it was never colonised.
Russians were civilised whites with a technology base of their own.
Indians and negros didn't even invent the wheel and were stoneage!
Blacks were primitves, true. The Indians built Pyramides and have other types of technology. You don't have to have weastern type of technology to be advenced. Even the gunfire is Chinese, and the British did colonised China.
If the Chinese had been smarter they kept gunpowder secret, and ruled the world by know.
Only because the Western nations had better economies they were able to colonise it.
The turd world today is colonising us, from basis, by demografical submersion . Wake up before it is too late Dester!!!
You're too young perhaps to understand me and Newman, because your mind is still a little naive.
I was so 10 year ago.
Indian pyramides were part of a pagan cult , were they sacrificed ever more humans by ripping out hearths.
Dont believe they were angels.
Are you Israeli? Are you gonna fight Arabs? ? I hope so. Or is that colonisation?
-
Check your facts.
THE INDIANS OF THE AMERICAS HAD NO WHEEL UNTIL EUROPEANS GOT THERE.
-
What, are you brainless ? You don't understand colonialism is immoral ? No one answered me yet about this. Especielly after the Colonialism was justified by Europeans because they thought they are Elightend and the Native americans and the Blacks are not human.
Ambiorix -
Yes I know about the ritouals the Natives did. Yet, I don't think killing millions of them is justified. Especiely because of the fact that only some tribes did what you mantioned.
And I am going to be in the Army, and don't say it's colonialism, we know what colonialism and what isn't.
newman -
Really ? Ever heard of the Aztec Calendar ?
http://everyschool.org/u/logan/culturalmath/aztec.gif
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:M5vb3aq7TFIPvM:http://lh3.google.com/_jNsjIh0QiZA/RopyZ_nds5I/AAAAAAAAAc8/9zR6GhpvY8s/s800/IMG_9206.jpg)
-
What, are you brainless ? You don't understand colonialism is immoral ? No one answered me yet about this. Especielly after the Colonialism was justified by Europeans because they thought they are Elightend and the Native americans and the Blacks are not human.
Ambiorix -
Yes I know about the ritouals the Natives did. Yet, I don't think killing millions of them is justified. Especiely because of the fact that only some tribes did what you mantioned.
And I am going to be in the Army, and don't say it's colonialism, we know what colonialism and what isn't.
newman -
Really ? Ever heard of the Aztec Calendar ?
http://everyschool.org/u/logan/culturalmath/aztec.gif
A moving wheel!!!!!!!!!!
No carts, no pullies, no trollies, NO WHEEL!
A circle on a callender means JACK!
-
Check your facts.
THE INDIANS OF THE AMERICAS HAD NO WHEEL UNTIL EUROPEANS GOT THERE.
Indians had no wheel but they had gold, and colonialist came to steal. Had they come to build a nation here, they wouldn't have made straight to Indian cities and capitals. Why didn't they settle in the non-inhabitted areas and leave Indians alone!!!!
-
Check your facts.
THE INDIANS OF THE AMERICAS HAD NO WHEEL UNTIL EUROPEANS GOT THERE.
Indians had no wheel but they had gold, and colonialist came to steal. Had they come to build a nation here, they wouldn't have made straight to Indian cities and capitals. Why didn't they settle in the non-inhabitted areas and leave Indians alone!!!!
Because a worthless, primitive 'culture' is of little cosequence and cannot stand in the way of progress.
-
What, are you brainless ? You don't understand colonialism is immoral ? No one answered me yet about this. Especielly after the Colonialism was justified by Europeans because they thought they are Elightend and the Native americans and the Blacks are not human.
Ambiorix -
Yes I know about the ritouals the Natives did. Yet, I don't think killing millions of them is justified. Especiely because of the fact that only some tribes did what you mantioned.
And I am going to be in the Army, and don't say it's colonialism, we know what colonialism and what isn't.
newman -
Really ? Ever heard of the Aztec Calendar ?
http://everyschool.org/u/logan/culturalmath/aztec.gif
A moving wheel!!!!!!!!!!
No carts, no pullies, no trollies, NO WHEEL!
A circle on a callender means JACK!
OK I checked and you are right.
"A wheel with spokes first appeared on Egyptian chariots around 2000 B.C.E., and wheels seem to have developed in Europe by 1400 B.C.E. without any influence from the Middle East. Because the idea of the wheel appears so simple, it’s easy to assume that the wheel would have simply "happened" in every culture when it reached a particular level of sophistication. However, this is not the case. The great Inca, Aztec and Maya civilizations reached an extremely high level of development, yet they never used the wheel. In fact, there is no evidence that the use of the wheel existed among native people anywhere in the Western Hemisphere until well after contact with Europeans. "
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/wheel.htm
-
Check your facts.
THE INDIANS OF THE AMERICAS HAD NO WHEEL UNTIL EUROPEANS GOT THERE.
Indians had no wheel but they had gold, and colonialist came to steal. Had they come to build a nation here, they wouldn't have made straight to Indian cities and capitals. Why didn't they settle in the non-inhabitted areas and leave Indians alone!!!!
Because a worthless, primitive 'culture' is of little cosequence and cannot stand in the way of progress.
Are you sane ?
-
See the factually correct film Apocalyto. You'll see what brutal, cruel, cannibalistic creatures the indians were. Life under europeans was still better than life as they lived it.
-
See the factually correct film Apocalyto. You'll see what brutal, cruel, cannibalistic creatures the indians were. Life under europeans was still better than life as they lived it.
"Better lives" ? The problem they didn't actually lived under European rule. They have been destroyed. You can compare the European Brutallity to the native one, you'll just see how the Europeans were far worse.
-
See the factually correct film Apocalyto. You'll see what brutal, cruel, cannibalistic creatures the indians were. Life under europeans was still better than life as they lived it.
"Better lives" ? The problem they didn't actually lived under European rule. They have been destroyed. You can compare the European Brutallity to the native one, you'll just see how the Europeans were far worse.
I have. And they weren't.
-
Check your facts.
THE INDIANS OF THE AMERICAS HAD NO WHEEL UNTIL EUROPEANS GOT THERE.
Indians had no wheel but they had gold, and colonialist came to steal. Had they come to build a nation here, they wouldn't have made straight to Indian cities and capitals. Why didn't they settle in the non-inhabitted areas and leave Indians alone!!!!
Because a worthless, primitive 'culture' is of little cosequence and cannot stand in the way of progress.
A human being is a human being, and if he is primitive, even if he rejects progress intentionally, there is no right to steal from him. NEVER! Only some animals act like that and try to destroy the weak. We are people and Hashem gave us a soul and a moral code. Thou shalt not steal!!!
-
See the factually correct film Apocalyto. You'll see what brutal, cruel, cannibalistic creatures the indians were. Life under europeans was still better than life as they lived it.
"Better lives" ? The problem they didn't actually lived under European rule. They have been destroyed. You can compare the European Brutallity to the native one, you'll just see how the Europeans were far worse.
I have. And they weren't.
1. Nazi Germany 38 million deaths, in World War Two, and the Holocaust,
2. Imperial Germany 34 million deaths,
by causing WW1, and the 1917 Flu, and the colonial depradations, in Africa.
3. Imperial China 28 million deathsby the 1900s famines, and slavery,
4. Imperial Russia 24 million deaths, by helping cause WW1, and numerous famines, and the Iranian famine of 1917
5. Communist USSR 21 million deaths, By famines, and oppressions
6. Imperial Austria 17.5 million deaths, by helping cause WW1
7. The demon Belgian king 15 million deaths, By inflicting the Congo empire democides
8. British Empire 12 million deaths By numerous famines, and wars in the early 20thC
:P
-
Check your facts.
THE INDIANS OF THE AMERICAS HAD NO WHEEL UNTIL EUROPEANS GOT THERE.
Indians had no wheel but they had gold, and colonialist came to steal. Had they come to build a nation here, they wouldn't have made straight to Indian cities and capitals. Why didn't they settle in the non-inhabitted areas and leave Indians alone!!!!
Because a worthless, primitive 'culture' is of little cosequence and cannot stand in the way of progress.
A human being is a human being, and if he is primitive, even if he rejects progress intentionally, there is no right to steal from him. NEVER! Only some animals act like that and try to destroy the weak. We are people and Hashem gave us a soul and a moral code. Thou shalt not steal!!!
Why are you still using that electric computer provided by evil european colonists?
Go live in the jungle like your indian forebears.
You're a hypocrite!
-
Ambiorix:
Raul, You're always siding with turd worlders.
I also begin to wonder if you're a Kahanist.
I hope you're not a NK-'Jew'
I support Israelites rights on Eretz Yisrael because they are the natives there. That's why I hate Palis invaders, indeed.
-
See the factually correct film Apocalyto. You'll see what brutal, cruel, cannibalistic creatures the indians were. Life under europeans was still better than life as they lived it.
"Better lives" ? The problem they didn't actually lived under European rule. They have been destroyed. You can compare the European Brutallity to the native one, you'll just see how the Europeans were far worse.
I have. And they weren't.
1. Nazi Germany 38 million deaths, in World War Two, and the Holocaust,
2. Imperial Germany 34 million deaths,
by causing WW1, and the 1917 Flu, and the colonial depradations, in Africa.
3. Imperial China 28 million deathsby the 1900s famines, and slavery,
4. Imperial Russia 24 million deaths, by helping cause WW1, and numerous famines, and the Iranian famine of 1917
5. Communist USSR 21 million deaths, By famines, and oppressions
6. Imperial Austria 17.5 million deaths, by helping cause WW1
7. The demon Belgian king 15 million deaths, By inflicting the Congo empire democides
8. British Empire 12 million deaths By numerous famines, and wars in the early 20thC
:P
Unfortunately I can't provide all the death & starvation statistics for pre-european africa and america because they were too primitive to even keep records! :P
-
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.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5668/26/
Newman, you are not very good demagog. The fact that it already have been done. Now we disscuse on the Historical view of that horrible crimes. Nazi Scientist helped USA win Germany altough those Scientist killed houndreds of people by helping Germany develope advenced weapons.
Unfortunately I can't provide all the death & starvation statistics for pre-european africa and america because they were too primitive to even keep records!
And because they didn't killed so much people because if they were there were evidince no metter how primitive they are. :P
-
Why are you still using that electric computer provided by evil european colonists?
Most advances and PC software is Israeli, not European!!! And not all Europeans are colonialists!!!! A scientist and a technician who developes electrical appliances is not a colonialist!!!
-
Why are you still using that electric computer provided by evil european colonists?
Most advances and PC software is Israeli, not European!!! And not all Europeans are colonialists!!!! A scientist and a technician who developes electrical appliances is not a colonialist!!!
True.
-
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.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5668/26/
Newman, you are not very good demagog. The fact that it already have been done. Now we disscuse on the Historical view of that horrible crimes. Nazi Scientist helped USA win Germany altough those Scientist killed houndreds of people by helping Germany develope advenced weapons.
Unfortunately I can't provide all the death & starvation statistics for pre-european africa and america because they were too primitive to even keep records!
And because they didn't killed so much people because if they were there were evidince no metter how primitive they are. :P
You're comparing statistics from different time periods. The post independence period was one of vastly improved medicine. I think you'll find a similar improvement in avoidable mortallity in europe over the same period.
Secondly, Britain created the separate muSSlim state of Pakistan before it left thus reducing further bloodshead.
Re: Africa/America;
Do you not talke into account the constant butchery of these people by each other before the europeans arrived?
My point about records is that those primitive cultures didn't keep records, so how can you compare life before european arrival?
-
Why are you still using that electric computer provided by evil european colonists?
Most advances and PC software is Israeli, not European!!! And not all Europeans are colonialists!!!! A scientist and a technician who developes electrical appliances is not a colonialist!!!
Hey dummy,
Electricity was invented by a european american. It was installed in south america by european americans. No colonisation of the americas.......no electricity. No colonisation,no advancement, no trade, no computers!!!
-
And BTW Dexter,
No Europeans=no WW1= no defeat of the Turks=no Balfour Declaration=no State of Israel!
-
You're comparing statistics from different time periods. The post independence period was one of vastly improved medicine. I think you'll find a similar improvement in avoidable mortallity in europe over the same period.
Secondly, Britain created the separate muSSlim state of Pakistan before it left thus reducing further bloodshead.
Re: Africa/America;
Do you not talke into account the constant butchery of these people by each other before the europeans arrived?
My point about records is that those primitive cultures didn't keep records, so how can you compare life before european arrival?
Actually, the Pakistan-Indian war made Millions of deaths.
Africa-
What butchery ? You have no prooves of any butchery, if there was butchery evidence will be found. It doesn't metter there were no records, we can know what happend.
No Europeans=no WW1= no defeat of the Turks=no Balfour Declaration=no State of Israel!
No Europeans=No Christianety=No Islam. Figuer it yourself.
-
iSSlam had nothing to do with european christianity. Christianity came from Jews not europeans. Figure that.
BTW,
Any anthropologist will tell you about the constant butchery that indians and africans committed on each other. They've studied bones and mass graves which prove it. There are just no STATISTICAL records but there are historical records.
-
Why are you still using that electric computer provided by evil european colonists?
Most advances and PC software is Israeli, not European!!! And not all Europeans are colonialists!!!! A scientist and a technician who developes electrical appliances is not a colonialist!!!
Hey dummy,
Electricity was invented by a european american. It was installed in south america by european americans. No colonisation of the americas.......no electricity. No colonisation,no advancement, no trade, no computers!!!
First of all, being American or European does not mean to be a colonialist. Secondly even Jew-haters may have invented something we use now. But I'll never praise an evildoer.
Eduard Jenner was an evil man who injected the pox vaccine in a girl, and then tried injecting her the virus to see if his vaccine was efficient. However we used his vaccine for centuries, but we cannot say he was a righteous doctor!!!!!
-
Why are you still using that electric computer provided by evil european colonists?
Most advances and PC software is Israeli, not European!!! And not all Europeans are colonialists!!!! A scientist and a technician who developes electrical appliances is not a colonialist!!!
Hey dummy,
Electricity was invented by a european american. It was installed in south america by european americans. No colonisation of the americas.......no electricity. No colonisation,no advancement, no trade, no computers!!!
First of all, being American or European does not mean to be a colonialist. Secondly even Jew-haters may have invented something we use now. But I'll never praise an evildoer.
Eduard Jenner was an evil man who injected the pox vaccine in a girl, and then tried injecting her the virus to see if his vaccine was efficient. However we used his vaccine for centuries, but we cannot say he was a righteous doctor!!!!!
You're still a hypocrite!
-
Christianity comes from Judea, that's right. Islam seems to be a mix Christianity, distorted Torah and Midrashim, Arab paganism and Arab pre-Islamic monotheism.
But if Europeans and other Westerners hadn't hated the Jews so much, Islamic fundamentalism would have never become a danger. Even in the seventies most Arab regimes were leftist communist secular dictatorships. Palis were the first to invent modern terrorism, and as the West supported them, just to damage Israel, terrorism spread even to America.
-
iSSlam had nothing to do with european christianity. Christianity came from Jews not europeans. Figure that.
BTW,
Any anthropologist will tell you about the constant butchery that indians and africans committed on each other. They've studied bones and mass graves which prove it. There are just no STATISTICAL records but there are historical records.
I guess you don't understand:
Christianety wouldn't become a religion without the Roman/Greek (Europeans) took Judea and than many Jewish cults as the one of Jesus. Figuar that.
Give sources for your claims. I provided sources for every claim I gave.
-
Christianity comes from Judea, that's right. Islam seems to be a mix Christianity, distorted Torah and Midrashim, Arab paganism and Arab pre-Islamic monotheism.
But if Europeans and other Westerners hadn't hated the Jews so much, Islamic fundamentalism would have never become a danger. Even in the seventies most Arab regimes were leftist communist secular dictatorships. Palis were the first to invent modern terrorism, and as the West supported them, just to damage Israel, terrorism spread even to America.
That's utterly stupid.
The muSSlim hatred of Jews has ZERO to do with christian anti-semitism. The europeans of today support palis bexause of muSSlim-nazi oil first, leftist self-hate second and Jew-hatred third.
In fact iSSlam was (relatively) better towards Jews in the middle ages when christian Jew-hatred was at it's peak!
-
iSSlam had nothing to do with european christianity. Christianity came from Jews not europeans. Figure that.
BTW,
Any anthropologist will tell you about the constant butchery that indians and africans committed on each other. They've studied bones and mass graves which prove it. There are just no STATISTICAL records but there are historical records.
I guess you don't understand:
Christianety wouldn't become a religion without the Roman/Greek (Europeans) took Judea and than many Jewish cults as the one of Jesus. Figuar that.
Give sources for your claims. I provided sources for every claim I gave.
History channel. :)
-
Wow.
Newman's taking some heat here, but I agree that Colonialism does NOT equal Nazism.
-
It's just another example of moral relativism. They'll be likening the IDF to the PLO next.
-
It's just another example of moral relativism. They'll be likening the IDF to the PLO next.
Calling someone you dislike a 'Nazi' is no different than blacks calling whites 'racists'.
-
It's an old leftist tactic like................
"The NYPD are the biggest gang in NYC" or
" The LAPD are worse than any colour gang".
They liken the good to the evil.
-
It's just another example of moral relativism. They'll be likening the IDF to the PLO next.
Likening colonislism to nazism may be correct or incorrect (depending on what you mean by nazi). Likening IDF to PLO has no sense. IDF defends Israel and Jews, the legitimate owners of EY (or at least did in the past, in 2005 they expelled Jews and made me remember nazi deportations!!!).
PLO is a terrorist org which aims to kill Jews and supports Pelistim (Invaders in Hebrew). So PLO can be considered a nazi colonialist murder org.
-
It's an old leftist tactic like................
"The NYPD are the biggest gang in NYC"
The one thing about police that bothers me is how they stick their noses into other people's business. This has always rubbed me the wrong way.
The cops in California lift a lot of weights and tend to have a rather 'chesty', macho attitude. This is especially obnoxious.
-
It's an old leftist tactic like................
"The NYPD are the biggest gang in NYC"
The one thing about police that bothers me is how they stick their noses into other people's business. This has always rubbed me the wrong way.
The cops in California lift a lot of weights and tend to have a rather 'chesty', macho attitude. This is especially obnoxious.
I'm sure their not saints. But unlike a leftist or negro race pimp I'm sure you'd never equate them to criminals/gang-bangers and rapists.
Just as some members of the US army aren't choir boys, I'd never equate their actions to al quaida.
Leftists and self-haters do.
-
It's an old leftist tactic like................
"The NYPD are the biggest gang in NYC"
The one thing about police that bothers me is how they stick their noses into other people's business. This has always rubbed me the wrong way.
The cops in California lift a lot of weights and tend to have a rather 'chesty', macho attitude. This is especially obnoxious.
I'm sure their not saints. But unlike a leftist or negro race pimp I'm sure you'd never equate them to criminals/gang-bangers and rapists.
Of course not.
-
Newman:
If it's was on the History Channel it must be on the net.
-
In light of archeological findings, the myth of the purity of primitive life juxtaposed to the savagery of Western Culture is even less justified. The Americas are scattered with archeological evidence of routine massacres, cannibalism, dismemberment, slavery, abuse of women and human sacrifice among native tribes. Why, the Northwest Territories Yellowknife tribe eventually disappeared as a direct result of a massacre carried out as late as 1823. By the same shift of logic, should remaining native "nations" perhaps not be made to pay reparations among themselves?
http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com/2007/10/rousseaus-noble-savage-not-on-this.html
In reality, Pocahontas's fellow Algonquin Indians were preyed on by the Iroquois, "who took captives home to torture them before death," observes Nicholas Wade en passant. The Iroquois? Surely not. Only a year or two back, the ethnic grievance lobby managed to persuade Congress to pass a resolution that the United States Constitution was modelled on the principles of the Iroquois Confederation -- which would have been news to the dead white males who wrote it. With Disney movies, one assumes it's just the modishness of showbiz ignoramuses and whatever multiculti theorists they've put on the payroll as consultants. But professor Keeley and Steven LeBlanc of Harvard disclose almost as an aside that, in fact, their scientific colleagues were equally invested in the notion of the noble primitive living in peace with nature and his fellow man, even though no such creature appears to have existed.
http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2006/07/the_myth_of_the_noble_savage.php
Amazon.com
Throughout much of this century the notion has been gaining ground, bolstered by genocide and Holocaust, that modern warfare is more barbaric than war has ever been. Alongside this view has grown a romantic impression that primitive cultures were, and are, more peaceful. Lawrence Keeley, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois, aims to dispel this inversion of the connotations of "civilization." He cites the historical evidence that humans have always been just as bloodthirsty as they are today, and that indeed in the days when death was less clinical it was often nastier. War, it seems, has always been with us. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
http://www.amazon.com/War-before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
-
Yeah Just like the mexica movment. You people have heard of it right. Go to their website and you'll see the hatred and racisim their.
-
In light of archeological findings, the myth of the purity of primitive life juxtaposed to the savagery of Western Culture is even less justified. The Americas are scattered with archeological evidence of routine massacres, cannibalism, dismemberment, slavery, abuse of women and human sacrifice among native tribes. Why, the Northwest Territories Yellowknife tribe eventually disappeared as a direct result of a massacre carried out as late as 1823. By the same shift of logic, should remaining native "nations" perhaps not be made to pay reparations among themselves?
http://southafricasucks.blogspot.com/2007/10/rousseaus-noble-savage-not-on-this.html
In reality, Pocahontas's fellow Algonquin Indians were preyed on by the Iroquois, "who took captives home to torture them before death," observes Nicholas Wade en passant. The Iroquois? Surely not. Only a year or two back, the ethnic grievance lobby managed to persuade Congress to pass a resolution that the United States Constitution was modelled on the principles of the Iroquois Confederation -- which would have been news to the dead white males who wrote it. With Disney movies, one assumes it's just the modishness of showbiz ignoramuses and whatever multiculti theorists they've put on the payroll as consultants. But professor Keeley and Steven LeBlanc of Harvard disclose almost as an aside that, in fact, their scientific colleagues were equally invested in the notion of the noble primitive living in peace with nature and his fellow man, even though no such creature appears to have existed.
http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2006/07/the_myth_of_the_noble_savage.php
Amazon.com
Throughout much of this century the notion has been gaining ground, bolstered by genocide and Holocaust, that modern warfare is more barbaric than war has ever been. Alongside this view has grown a romantic impression that primitive cultures were, and are, more peaceful. Lawrence Keeley, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois, aims to dispel this inversion of the connotations of "civilization." He cites the historical evidence that humans have always been just as bloodthirsty as they are today, and that indeed in the days when death was less clinical it was often nastier. War, it seems, has always been with us. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
http://www.amazon.com/War-before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
I already said thet the American Natives had a violence culture not less than the European one. Yet, we talked about the Black tribes. Furthermore, you still ignore the fact thet Colonialism is immoral.
-
The purpose of civilised humans is to civilise the uncivilised. Mistakes are made, but you are naive if you think the Americas and africa would have remained untouched. If europeans didn't colonise it, the chinese, Japanese or others would have.
Is africa today better off than it was under the white man? I don't think so.
-
The purpose of civilised humans is to civilise the uncivilised. Mistakes are made, but you are naive if you think the Americas and Africa would have remained untouched. If Europeans didn't colonise it, the Chinese, Japanese or others would have.
Is Africa today better off than it was under the white man? I don't think so.
I agree that the Europeans should have change the culture of the Africans but not by killing millions of them. The "excuses" of trying to civilise the "Barbarians" is nothing more than an excuse to use the natural resources in the land they conquered. The Chinese were advanced just maybe as the Europeans and they even got America before them but they didn't have the idea of trying to colonise other cultures, it was all European ethnocentric way of thought.
Africa was better to the Africans before white men, I think it would be better to them to live in tribes instead of centrel cities while spreading AIDS.
-
The purpose of civilised humans is to civilise the uncivilised. Mistakes are made, but you are naive if you think the Americas and Africa would have remained untouched. If Europeans didn't colonise it, the Chinese, Japanese or others would have.
Is Africa today better off than it was under the white man? I don't think so.
I agree that the Europeans should have change the culture of the Africans but not by killing millions of them. The "excuses" of trying to civilise the "Barbarians" is nothing more than an excuse to use the natural resources in the land they conquered. The Chinese were advanced just maybe as the Europeans and they even got America before them but they didn't have the idea of trying to colonise other cultures, it was all European ethnocentric way of thought.
Africa was better to the Africans before white men, I think it would be better to them to live in tribes instead of centrel cities while spreading AIDS.
Africans killed, ate and enslaved each other long before white man got there. They continue to this day. Whites controlled them better. Spastics and retards have rights in our society but they have to managed. So it is with the primitive. They have rights but need to be managed by their betters.
-
The purpose of civilised humans is to civilise the uncivilised. Mistakes are made, but you are naive if you think the Americas and Africa would have remained untouched. If Europeans didn't colonise it, the Chinese, Japanese or others would have.
Is Africa today better off than it was under the white man? I don't think so.
I agree that the Europeans should have change the culture of the Africans but not by killing millions of them. The "excuses" of trying to civilise the "Barbarians" is nothing more than an excuse to use the natural resources in the land they conquered. The Chinese were advanced just maybe as the Europeans and they even got America before them but they didn't have the idea of trying to colonise other cultures, it was all European ethnocentric way of thought.
Africa was better to the Africans before white men, I think it would be better to them to live in tribes instead of centrel cities while spreading AIDS.
Dexter, for goodness sake, give me the evidence of the supposed millions of africans that were killed!!?
As for China, they were all too busy fighting among their fellow asians to be able to expand! Japanses etc.
China was there before white man? Ok, so they were in NA BEFORE the Vikings ????
-
The purpose of civilised humans is to civilise the uncivilised. Mistakes are made, but you are naive if you think the Americas and Africa would have remained untouched. If Europeans didn't colonise it, the Chinese, Japanese or others would have.
Is Africa today better off than it was under the white man? I don't think so.
I agree that the Europeans should have change the culture of the Africans but not by killing millions of them. The "excuses" of trying to civilise the "Barbarians" is nothing more than an excuse to use the natural resources in the land they conquered. The Chinese were advanced just maybe as the Europeans and they even got America before them but they didn't have the idea of trying to colonise other cultures, it was all European ethnocentric way of thought.
Africa was better to the Africans before white men, I think it would be better to them to live in tribes instead of centrel cities while spreading AIDS.
Africans killed, ate and enslaved each other long before white man got there. They continue to this day. Whites controlled them better. Spastics and retards have rights in our society but they have to managed. So it is with the primitive. They have rights but need to be managed by their betters.
Cannebilasm wasn't common as you try to present, it existed only in some very few tribes. The white men didn't controlled the Africans better, for god's sake, White men destroyed the blacks and sent them to far lands as America so the white men could enslave them there.
Dexter, for goodness sake, give me the evidence of the supposed millions of africans that were killed!!?
Already gave but if you didn't saw I'll post it again:
The entire Kikuyu nation (the largest national group within Kenya) was considered to be under the sway of the Mau Mau insurgents, and treated accordingly.
Hundreds of thousands of men were sent to prison camps, while almost the entire female population (along with children and elderly) were imprisoned in fortified “villages” set up by the British, surrounded by spiked trenches and barbed wire, the site of torture, starvation and forced slave labour.
Indeed, at one point or another almost the entire Kikuyu population of 1.5 million were detained.
Such are the crimes of colonialism.
Earlier this year i read an interesting book – Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson – which recounts and explains the most important episodes of this dirty war. From my position of ignorance, it was a good introduction to the history of the anti-colonial struggle in Kenya, and (amongst its strengths) Anderson’s book provides ample description of the role class struggle within the Kikuyu nation played. (Indeed, while Mau Mau killed almost two thousand African collaborators, only thirty two European settlers were killed during the entire rebellion - estimates of the number of Mau Mau killed range from 12,000 to 20,000.)
As a liberal “coming to terms” with Britain’s colonial crimes, Anderson’s book works. There is an unfortunate bias, though, in that the thread he follows is the list of incidents around which men were sentenced to die by the settler government (merely being a member of or associating with members of the Mau Mau was a capital crime). As he notes, the number of men sent to the gallows in Kenya was “more than double the number of executions carried out against convicted terrorists in Algeria, and many more than in all the other British colonial emergencies of the post-war period – in Eretz Yisrael, Malaya, Cyprus and Aden.”
The criminal laws the police had to enforce were originally planned to be quite similar to the British codes. However, the colonial rulers soon decided that preference should be given to introduce Indian law in Kenya since, unlike British law, Indian law was codified and thus thought off to be a better instrument to control the African population. The Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Police Act which were introduced in colonial Kenya, were all imported from British India. Next to this imported legal system, the British took into account customary laws: cases involving Africans were guided by native regulations, so far as applicable, and inasmuch as they were reconcilable with British standards of legal morality. The activities of the police involved night patrols in the urban areas, the detection of property crimes, the enforcement of labor laws on settler farms, the execution of death sentences, and, more than anything else, the protection of European property and persons. The enforcement of minor offenses took up most of the police time. In 1937, for instance, no less than 6,000 Africans were prosecuted for being resident in townships without permission, or because of failure to produce a pass, over 3,000 for crimes against property, more than 4,700 for not paying hut taxes, and more than 1,000 for vagrancy. Despite these impressive figures, however, many laws were not enforced by the police who ran their operations quite independently from the colonial legal administration.
Sources:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zcolpol.html
http://sketchythoughts.blogspot.com/2006/12/kenya-and-crimes-of-colonialism.html
That's Kenya only.
MILITARY CAMPAIGN AGAINST POWHATAN
During the summer of 1610 in Jamestown, the Governor, Thomas West De la Warr had directed Powhatan to return several runaway Englishman. It appears Powhatan did not respond in a satisfactory manner. De la Warr felt this was sufficient reason to conduct a military campaign against Powhatan. George Percy, brother to the Earl of Northumberland and De la Warr's second in command headed up the military action against Powhatan. The following is Percy's description of the actions that took place;
Drawing my soldiers into battle, placing a Captain or Lieutenant at every file, we marched towards the Indian Town...and then we fell upon them, put some fifteen or sixteen to the sword and almost the rest to flight...My Lieutenant brought with him the Queen and her children and one Indian prisoner for which I taxed him because he had spared them. His answer was that having them now in custody I might do with them what I pleased. Upon the same I caused the Indians head to be cut off, then disperesed my files, appointing my soldiers to burn their houses and to cut down their corn growing about the town. With the Indians dead or disperesed, their village destroyed, and their food supplies laid to waste, Percy sent out another raiding party to the the same to another Indian Town and then marched to his boats with the Queen and her children in tow. There, however his soldiers "did begin to murmur because the Queen and her children were spared." This seemed a reasonable complaint to Percy, so he called a council together and "it was agreed upon to putt the children to death THE WHICH WAS EFFECTED BY THROWING THEM OVERBOARD, SHOOTING OUT THEIR BRAINS IN THE WATER." Upon his return to Jamestown, however, Percy was informed that Governor De la Warr was unhappy with him because he had not yet killed the Queen. Advised by his chief Lieutenant that it would be best to burn her alive, Perry instead decided to end his day of "so much bloodshed" with a final act of mercy:instead of burning her, he had the queen quickly killed by stabbing her to death.
JAMESTOWN LEGISLATION AGAINST THE INDIANS
In 1623, the Jamestown Colonists passed legislation that indicated their hostility toward the Indians. The following acts are those that deal with the Indians.
Act 23: " that every dwelling house shall be pallizaded in for defence against the Indians.
Act 24: "that no man go or send abroad without a sufficient party well armed.
Act 25: "that men go not towork in the ground with out their arms (and a centenell upon them).
Act 26: "that the inhabitants go not aboard ships or upon any other occasions in such numbers, as thereby to weaken and endanger the plantations.
Act 27: "that the commander of every plantation take care that there be sufficient powder and ammunition within the plantation under his command and their pieces fixt and their arms complete.
Act 29: "that no commander of any plantation do either him-selfe or suffer others to spend powder unnecessarily in drinking or entertainments.
Act 32:"that at the beginning of July next the inhabitants of every corporation shall fall upon their adjoining savages, as we did last year, those that shall be hurt upon services, to be cured at the public charge; in case any to be lamed to be maintained by the country according to his person and quality.
Finally in 1655 the legislatures first act for that session was to pass an Act in the Indians favor. The Assembly admitted they were harsh on the Indians and they had attacked the white man to protect their land and way of life. The first Act: for every eight wolves heads the Indian brought in, the Great Man would receive a cow. The second Act: if the Indian families would bring in their children to live with a white family, the children would be educated and civilized and not be used as slaves. The third Act: it addressed the Indians land in that he could not bargin away his land to an Englishman without the permission of the Assembly, and his land was protected from unfair seizure.
Based on the treatment the English inflicted on the Powhatans when they arrived in 1608,the colonists, after the Revolutionary War continued the same methods that had served the English so well as indicated in the following stories as the United States moved west.
SAND CREEK MASSACRE (SE COLORADO).
In 1864 Col Chivington ( a former clergyman that had political ambitions) was appointed the territorial military commander in Colorado. After some isolated incidents with the Indians, Chivington sent out detachments to burn and destroy Indian villages, the Cheyenne, Arapahos, Sioux, Kiowa's, and Comanches's struck back. this give Chivington the opportunity that he was looking for, to launch a full scale attack on the Indians.
On November 29, 1864, Chivington deployed his command, about seven hundred solders with howitzers around Black Kettle's village on Sand Creek. Black Kettle was under the impression that he was at peace with the Americans; he ran up the American Flag and assured his people that all was well. the troops opened fire and charged. The Indians scattered in all directions. Chivington had made it clear that he wanted no prisoners, hie policy was "to kill and scalp all, little and big". Nits make lice he was fond of saying. Interpreter John Smith later testified: they were scalped, their brains knocked out; the men used their knives, ripped open women, clubbed little children, knocked them in the head with their guns, beat their brains out, mutilated their bodies in every sense of the word. Two hundred Cheyenne's, two thirds of them women and children perished. Nine chiefs died, however Chief Black Kettle escaped.( Only to be murdered later by Custer).
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.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5668/26/
-
Dexter you hypocrite! By your own reasoning, I am now convinced that the PALISTINIANS are the true natives of PALISTINE!!! EXCELLENT! So get your EVIL COLONIALISTIC israeli ass out of palistinian lands ok! Those poor poor palistinians...those poor women and children being bombed in their little houses! you evil people!
And if you justify this with 2000 years of claim, then YOU are saying youre superior to other cultures!
-
And if you justify this with 2000 years of claim, then YOU are saying youre superior to other cultures!
OK, here are some tasks for you:
A. Find a definion of Colonialism
B. Find a quote of me saying I'm suprior of other cultures
C. Explein what the fact that Jews lived in "Palesti-ne" for 3300 years have to do with "Suprior culture".
Good luck.
-
1.5 million DETAINED! Not killed!
Mau-Mau! Ok, so mayby we should've just left communism destroy all of africa...how nice.
-
Lebanon 2006
Thopusands of poor lebanese women and children killed by israeli colonists.
Thousands are held in israeli prisons
-
1.5 million DETAINED! Not killed!
Mau-Mau! Ok, so mayby we should've just left communism destroy all of africa...how nice.
-
Lebanon 2006
Thopusands of poor lebanese women and children killed by israeli colonists.
Thousands are held in israeli prisons
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.
???
Mau-Mau! Ok, so mayby we should've just left communism destroy all of africa...how nice.
No, the Colonialists were nicer than the Communists, of course!
Yet, you don't know what Colonialism is. Let me explein you by a nice definion:
"Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. One of the difficulties in defining colonialism is that it is difficult to distinguish it from imperialism. Frequently the two concepts are treated as synonyms. Like colonialism, imperialism also involves political and economic control over a dependent territory. Turning to the etymology of the two terms, however, provides some suggestion about how they differ. The term colony comes from the Latin word colonus, meaning farmer. This root reminds us that the practice of colonialism usually involved the transfer of population to a new territory, where the new arrivals lived as permanent settlers while maintaining political allegiance to their country of origin. Imperialism, on the other hand, comes from the Latin term imperium, meaning to command. Thus, the term imperialism draws attention to the way that one country exercises power over another, whether through settlement, sovereignty, or indirect mechanisms of control."
-Stanford Encyclopedia.
Now, go on.
-
And if you justify this with 2000 years of claim, then YOU are saying youre superior to other cultures!
OK, here are some tasks for you:
A. Find a definion of Colonialism
B. Find a quote of me saying I'm suprior of other cultures
C. Explein what the fact that Jews lived in "Palesti-ne" for 3300 years have to do with "Suprior culture".
Good luck.
Because that's a justification for saying you can enter a country and simply claim it, because 2000 years ago you used to own it.
Whereas, non-Jews are not allowed to have countries because they don't have 2000 years of claim, but only 400
Oh, and by using your liberal friends' resources. I(european), claim the ENTIRE Africa! It was my ancestors whom were living in africa millions of years ago. I therefore have MILLIONS of years of claims to africa (and the entire world-the super continent). I have therefore only returned to what was once my ancestors'
So therefore Israel is illegal! They only have 2000 years of claim, where i have 1000000000000's of years of claim.
THANK YOU :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Boer, please don't compare Israel with colonialists! Jew are the natives, and Arabs are the colonialists who conquered all the Middle East!!!! Also native Maronites in Lebanon yearn for Israeli control to get rid of Arabs invaders!!!!
-
The purpose of civilised humans is to civilise the uncivilised. Mistakes are made, but you are naive if you think the Americas and Africa would have remained untouched. If Europeans didn't colonise it, the Chinese, Japanese or others would have.
Is Africa today better off than it was under the white man? I don't think so.
I agree that the Europeans should have change the culture of the Africans but not by killing millions of them. The "excuses" of trying to civilise the "Barbarians" is nothing more than an excuse to use the natural resources in the land they conquered. The Chinese were advanced just maybe as the Europeans and they even got America before them but they didn't have the idea of trying to colonise other cultures, it was all European ethnocentric way of thought.
Africa was better to the Africans before white men, I think it would be better to them to live in tribes instead of centrel cities while spreading AIDS.
Africans killed, ate and enslaved each other long before white man got there. They continue to this day. Whites controlled them better. Spastics and retards have rights in our society but they have to managed. So it is with the primitive. They have rights but need to be managed by their betters.
Cannebilasm wasn't common as you try to present, it existed only in some very few tribes. The white men didn't controlled the Africans better, for G-d's sake, White men destroyed the blacks and sent them to far lands as America so the white men could enslave them there.
I dispute that. In any case, murder, warfare and enslavement were rife.
They sent very few slaves abroad in percentage terms. The slaves were caught and sold by other blacks and arabs/north africans , not whites!
BTW,
It was Britain who abolished slavery in 1807 and the Royal Navy who policed the seas and interdicted hundreds of slave ships thus preventing slaves from being taken abroad.
-
Boer, please don't compare Israel with colonialists! Jew are the natives, and Arabs are the colonialists who conquered all the Middle East!!!! Also native Maronites in Lebanon yearn for Israeli control to get rid of Arabs invaders!!!!
oh yes...and the "Land of Milk and Honey" was not occupied already when Moses and the Israelites arrived there?
-
Boer is right about our claims to africa. If all life started in africa, europeans DID have a million year claim.
Also, Brits are a keltic/norman people. Both the kelts and normans originated in the Indian sub continent. So they have a right to India, too.
-
Ok fine. I won't call it colonialism, ill call it communism. I therefore have claim to the world (worldwide revolution-remember?), and can kill 200 million people. And also, it goes down mcuh better with dexter that way than colonialism
-
Boer, please don't compare Israel with colonialists! Jew are the natives, and Arabs are the colonialists who conquered all the Middle East!!!! Also native Maronites in Lebanon yearn for Israeli control to get rid of Arabs invaders!!!!
oh yes...and the "Land of Milk and Honey" was not occupied already when Moses and the Israelites arrived there?
Israelites lived in Israel long before Moses. It was originally the Land of Shem, and Canaanites had stolen it before. Israelites returned from Egypt.They were natives of Israel, not Egiptian.
-
And if you justify this with 2000 years of claim, then YOU are saying youre superior to other cultures!
OK, here are some tasks for you:
A. Find a definion of Colonialism
B. Find a quote of me saying I'm suprior of other cultures
C. Explein what the fact that Jews lived in "Palesti-ne" for 3300 years have to do with "Suprior culture".
Good luck.
Because that's a justification for saying you can enter a country and simply claim it, because 2000 years ago you used to own it.
Whereas, non-Jews are not allowed to have countries because they don't have 2000 years of claim, but only 400
Oh, and by using your liberal friends' resources. I(european), claim the ENTIRE Africa! It was my ancestors whom were living in africa millions of years ago. I therefore have MILLIONS of years of claims to africa (and the entire world-the super continent). I have therefore only returned to what was once my ancestors'
So therefore Israel is illegal! They only have 2000 years of claim, where i have 1000000000000's of years of claim.
THANK YOU :) :) :) :) :) :)
We didn't entered there while it was empty, and we didn't took the land of the "natives" because the Arabs are simpely are not the natives. Since we were already a people 3300 years ago and always wanted the land as a people we still have the right to claim the land. And the Arabs don't have rights on our land because, exectly, they are here for 1300 years. Great!
Furthermore, there is a diffrent between a race (tell me, what's the connection of your 1.5 million anccestor who lived in south africa to the anccestor who lived in west africa?) and people, that are unite. And yet, you haven't prooved any Colonialism.
By the way, acorrding to you, the Arabs do have rights on our land, now, that's a leftist undercover :) :)
I dispute that. In any case, murder, warfare and enslavement were rife.
They sent very few slaves abroad in percentage terms. The slaves were caught and sold by other blacks and arabs/north africans , not whites!
BTW,
It was Britain who abolished slavery in 1807 and the Royal Navy who policed the seas and interdicted hundreds of slave ships thus preventing slaves from being taken abroad.
Yes I know the Arabs were very main part of slavery. The Arabs sold Slaves to the whites.
-
Boer is right about our claims to africa. If all life started in africa, europeans DID have a million year claim.
Also, Brits are a keltic/norman people. Both the kelts and normans originated in the Indian sub continent. So they have a right to India, too.
yes...and since the world once used to be one super continent-Australia, Americas, Africa and Asia is therfore RIGHTFULLY europeans'. After all, coloialism was simply returning to our birthright...just as the Israelis are, and killing a few on the way (as the israeli's are). Also, plaese evacute Israel, so that our people can live in our lands-we have a longer claim on it. Thank you
Newman, you take the Eastern Hemisphere, and il take West :) Man all this power is great!
-
Boer is right about our claims to africa. If all life started in africa, europeans DID have a million year claim.
Also, Brits are a keltic/norman people. Both the kelts and normans originated in the Indian sub continent. So they have a right to India, too.
All Europeans origin is of the Caucasus. They came Europe at 3000 B.C.E
-
Boer is right about our claims to africa. If all life started in africa, europeans DID have a million year claim.
Also, Brits are a keltic/norman people. Both the kelts and normans originated in the Indian sub continent. So they have a right to India, too.
yes...and since the world once used to be one super continent-Australia, Americas, Africa and Asia is therfore RIGHTFULLY europeans'. After all, coloialism was simply returning to our birthright...just as the Israelis are, and killing a few on the way (as the israeli's are). Also, plaese evacute Israel, so that our people can live in our lands-we have a longer claim on it. Thank you
Newman, you take the Eastern Hemisphere, and il take West :) Man all this power is great!
I think acorrding to you both me and you have the same right on Palest-ine, it least for a person with logic.
-
The p@lestinians claim to be canaanites. They were in EY first. So Dexter is part of a colonial occupation according to his reasoning.
-
The p@lestinians claim to be canaanites. They were in EY first. So Dexter is part of a colonial occupation according to his reasoning.
A. The P@lestinians are Arabs.
B. We are canaanites
C. End of story.
D. Try to read what Colonialism is.
-
Furthermore, there is a diffrent between a race (tell me, what's the connection of your 1.5 million anccestor who lived in south africa to the anccestor who lived in west africa?) and people, that are unite. And yet, you haven't prooved any Colonialism.
But Dexter,
The Jews of today are a different race to what was in Judea/Israel BCE. So by your reasoning they have no claim to EY.
-
Furthermore, there is a diffrent between a race (tell me, what's the connection of your 1.5 million anccestor who lived in south africa to the anccestor who lived in west africa?) and people, that are unite. And yet, you haven't prooved any Colonialism.
But Dexter,
The Jews of today are a different race to what was in Judea/Israel BCE. So by your reasoning they have no claim to EY.
A. Jews are not a race ( with supporting Colonialism you read Mein Kampf ?)
B. It have been proofed that Jews origin is of the Meadle east and thet we have huge genetic connection with each other.
-
The p@lestinians claim to be canaanites. They were in EY first. So Dexter is part of a colonial occupation according to his reasoning.
A. The P@lestinians are Arabs.
B. We are canaanites
C. End of story.
D. Try to read what Colonialism is.
Canaanites are extinct. You cannot be a canaanite any more than I am neanderthal.
Arafat always talked about their caaanite roots. Prove him wrong.
-
Furthermore, there is a diffrent between a race (tell me, what's the connection of your 1.5 million anccestor who lived in south africa to the anccestor who lived in west africa?) and people, that are unite. And yet, you haven't prooved any Colonialism.
But Dexter,
The Jews of today are a different race to what was in Judea/Israel BCE. So by your reasoning they have no claim to EY.
A. Jews are not a race ( with supporting Colonialism you read Mein Kampf ?)
B. It have been proofed that Jews origin is of the Meadle east and thet we have huge genetic connection with each other.
There is also genetic proof of european ancestry in africa. It's a proven fact that NOBODY denies. Yet you say we have no claim because we are a different race to present day africans.
OK, then by that reasoning ashkenazim and sephardim have no claim on EY because (while they share the Jewish religion) their race is different to ancient Judeans.
-
The p@lestinians claim to be canaanites. They were in EY first. So Dexter is part of a colonial occupation according to his reasoning.
A. The P@lestinians are Arabs.
B. We are canaanites
C. End of story.
D. Try to read what Colonialism is.
Canaanites are extinct. You cannot be a canaanite any more than I am neanderthal.
Arafat always talked about their caaanite roots. Prove him wrong.
Canaanites weren't extinct as the acient Phoenicians didn't, they marged with people thet controlled them (as Jews). Arafat always talked about the P@lestinian caaanite roots, while he was Egypetion. But fine, I will proove him wrong:
The fact is that today's Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today's Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, Muslim Sherkas from Russia, Muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door. The civil and tribal wars between Yemmenites (from Yemen) and Kessites (from Banu Kais of Saudi Arabia) ... are well known among Palestinians.
"My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life by Abdul Qader Al-Husseni (the leader of the Palestinian revolution) after being accused of selling land to Jews. He used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants."
- Walid, a Palestinian Arab defector, talking about the recent immigration of Arabs to Palestine.
quoted from "Answering Islam"
The current PLO and Arab claim (and mainstream media regurgitation of it) is indeed a very distorted version of `recorded history' and can only qualify as pure Orwellian propaganda. In fact, putting aside all the myths and propaganda, the only area that would qualify historically as truly Arab land, is the Arabian desert peninsula. Unfortunately, it seems that Goebbels was correct in stating that if a lie were repeated often enough, it would come to be "perceived" as truth.
No doubt, some Arabs have lived in the area of the Mandate of Palestine for many centuries, but not as many of them as had the Jews. What is more, Jews had lived in Arab lands since times preceding Islam itself. And yet, these Jews in Arab lands were never regarded as citizens of the Arab lands they lived in and were unceremoniously expelled in the years subsequent to Israel's establishment. In other words, residency alone did not confer national rights on those who inhabited an area. Nor did it make a people out of congeries of Arabs and other nationalities that had come to the area of the Mandate of Palestine while the Jewish people were restricted. The nations of the world recognized this after World War I when the League of Nations determined that the geographical area called Palestine was to become a homeland for the Jewish people, the people that had been continuously associated with this land since ancient times when it was known as Judea and Samaria.
During the British Mandate, even well into the 1940s, Arabs were allowed into "Palestine" in huge numbers without visa or passport, especially from the Hauran District of Syria, while the British continued to do everything possible to prevent Jews from entering, even down to the last minute when all attempts were made to deny entry to thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis. Only in 1948 were Jewish refugees allowed free entry to their homeland, and that was because Israel had, once again, become an independent nation.
[The Arabs of Ottoman Palestine may have] had certain attachments to the fields they were cultivating but at the same time they were destroying the Land. Parkes stated that "in the wars between villages it was far too common a practice to cut down fruit trees and olives and to destroy crops, and this in the end caused as much loss of life through hunger as was caused by the actual casualties of fighting". He concluded that "in spite of the immense fertility of the soil, it is probable that in the first half of the nineteenth century the population sank to the lowest level it had ever known in historic times".
Palestinian leaders claim that Israel is built on Arab land, when the truth is that eyewitnesses such as Mark Twain and Rev. Manning of England who visited the Holy Land in the last century wrote that the land was barren and empty. The population then was less that 5% of today's population.
In fact Joan Peters in her book "From Time Immemorial" tells us that the return of the Jews in 1800's and early 1900's created jobs and Arabs from impoverished areas were drawn into the Holy Land for work. Peters also tells us that in 1948 so many Arabs were new to the area and could not qualify for the UN requirement for refugee status (people forced to leave "permanent" or "habitual" homes) that they added a clause permitting refugee status for Arabs who had been there as little as two years.
Thus the Zionist slogan "The Land without a people for the people without a land" was absolutely correct. The slogan did not mean that there were no inhabitants at all in Palestine, it just indicated that the non-Jewish population constituted a conglomeration of dozens of heterogeneous groups of residents having very little in common, i.e. not constituting a single nation, a people. These residents were not united by any specific national idea. Parkes wrote that the Balfour declaration for the first time established a "unit called Palestine on a political map. ...There was no such thing historically as a 'Palestinian Arab', and there was no feeling of unity among 'the Arabs' of this newly defined area".
There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.
But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
- Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist,
editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily
The concept of "Palestinians" is one that did not exist until about 1948, when the Arab inhabitants, of what until then was Palestine, wished to differentiate themselves from the Jews. Until then, the Jews were the Palestinians. There was the Palestinian Brigade of Jewish volunteers in the British World War II Army (at a time when the Palestinian Arabs were in Berlin hatching plans with Adolf Hitler for world conquest and how to kill all the Jews); there was the Palestinian Symphony Orchestra (all Jews, of course); there was The Palestine Post; and so much more.
The Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" do so in order to persuade a misinformed world that they are a distinct nationality and that "Palestine" is their ancestral homeland. But they are no distinct nationality at all. They are the same - in language, custom, and tribal and family ties - as the Arabs of Syria, Jordan, and beyond. There is no more difference between the "Palestinians" and the other Arabs of those countries than there is between, say, the citizens of Minnesota and those of Wisconsin.
What's more, many of the "Palestinians", or their immediate ancestors, came to the area attracted by the prosperity created by the Jews, in what previously had been pretty much of a wasteland.
- New York Times, June 12, 2000 (via CFICEJ's ISRAEL REPORT May/June 2000)
Meeting in Cairo in 1964, the Arab League resolved to divert the waters of the Jordan River, which are vital for Israel's existence. At that same conference, there was a public declaration of the intention to destroy Israel, and the PLO was founded.
- Anita Shapira, The New Republic, 29 November, 1999
It is mainly in the past few decades that "Palestinian" has been co-opted by the Arabs, as if the name belongs exclusively to them, pretending to have a long history and independent national identity. Until 1967, most of those who now call themselves Palestinians were reasonably happy with their Jordanian citizenship and with calling themselves "Jordanians" Even today, there is strong support among the "Palestinian" majority of Jordan for their Hashemite monarchy, though King Hussein relies on his Bedouin troops when he needs absolute loyalty.
The use of a term like "Palestinian" without the suffix "Arab" and the term "Israeli-Occupied Palestine" have served to confuse the public into thinking that there has always been an independent "Palestinian" people which hasn't been given the opportunity for self-determination. In fact, any such failure has been the fault of the government of Jordan, which covers the majority of what was once known as "Palestine" and in which the majority of Palestinian Arabs live.
"Palestinians" [are an] Arab people no one heard of before 1967 before Israeli governments certified this piece of propaganda... As has been noted many times before, prior to 1948, that is before Jews had begun to call themselves Israelis, the only persons known as "Palestinians" were Jews, with the Arabs much preferrring to identify themselves as part of the great Arab nation.
- David Basch
The actual word "Palestine" came from the Romans, not the Arabs, and there has never been an independent country or state of Palestine, nor a Palestinian rule. Yet we are led to believe that there are Palestinians and then there are Arabs.
Avi Erlich wrote in his book Ancient Zionism, A Palestinian Arab claim to the Land of Israel cannot rise above a claim to houses, lost from the larger Arab Empire. Neither Moorish homes in Cordoba nor Arab homes in Jerusalem can reasonably constitute lost nations. ...Homeland represents the grafting of a specific place with a specific national idea. No Palestinian idea beyond the claim to land or other lost property has ever been articulated. Borrowed and usurping nationhood does not count.
Palestine has always constituted a single geographical, political and demographic unit with Greater Syria and Egypt. On its soil the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt intermingled. Palestine also witnessed, as a land bridge linking Asia, Africa, and Europe, several movements and waves of conquerors who dominated it for different periods of time and left behind varying degrees of influence.
- By Abdul Jawad Saleh, in Transformation of Palestine, printed in Challenge, February 1995, published on the WWW by the Center for Research and Documentation of Palestinian Society, Bir Zeit University, the West Bank
Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
"We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."
"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937
"Palestine was part of the Province of Syria...
...politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."
- The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted this in a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947
"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
- Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, to the UN Security Council
The Romans had changed the name of the Land of Israel to "Palestine." But from A.D. 640 until the 1960s, Arabs referred to this same Land as "Southern Syria." Arabs only started calling the Land "Palestine" in the 1960s. Until about the eighteenth century, the Christian world called this same Land, "The Holy Land." Thereafter, they used two names: "The Holy Land" and "Palestine." When the League of Nations in 1922 gave Great Britain the mandate to prepare Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, the official name of the Land became "Palestine" and remained so until the rebirth of the Israeli State in 1948. During this very period, the leaders of the Arabs in the Land, however, called themselves Southern Syrians and clamored that the Land become a part of a "Greater Syria." This "Arab Nation" would include Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan as well as Palestine. An observation in TIME magazine well articulated how the Palestinian identity was born so belatedly in the 1960s:
Golda Meir once argued that there was no such thing as a Palestinian; at the time, she wasn't entirely wrong. Before Arafat began his proselytizing, most of the Arabs from the territory of Palestine thought of themselves as members of an all-embracing Arab nation. It was Arafat who made the intellectual leap to a definition of the Palestinians as a distinct people; he articulated the cause, organized for it, fought for it and brought it to the world's attention.
If there was an Arab Palestinian culture, a normal population increase over the centuries would have been expected. But with the exception of a relatively few families, the Arabs had no attachment to the Land. If Arabs from southern Syria drifted into Palestine for economic reasons, within a generation or so the cultural tug of Syria or other Arab lands would pull them back. This factor is why the Arab population average remained low until the influx of Jewish financial investments and Jewish people in the late 1800s made the Land economically attractive. Then sometime between 1850 and 1918, the Arab population shot up to 560,000. Not to absolve the Jews but to defend British policy, the not overfriendly British secretary of state for the colonies, Malcolm MacDonald, declared in the House of Commons (November 24, 1938), "The Arabs cannot say that the Jews are driving them out of the country. If not a single Jew had come to Palestine after 1918, I believe the Arab population of Palestine would still have been around 600,000. . ."
Because Arabs until the 1960s spoke of Palestine as Southern Syria or part of Greater Syria, in 1919 the General Syrian Congress stated, "We ask that there should be no separation of the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine." In 1939 George Antonius noted the Arab view of Palestine in 1918:
Faisal's views about the future of Palestine did not differ from those of his father and were identical with those held then by the great majority of politically-minded Arabs. The representative Arab view was substantially that which King Husain [Grand Sherif of Mecca, the great grandfather of the current King Hussein of Jordan] had expressed to the British Government. . . in January 1918. In the Arab view, Palestine was an Arab territory forming an integral part of Syria.
Referring to the same Arab view of Palestine in 1939, George Antonius spoke of "the whole of the country of that name [Syria] which is now split up into mandated territories..." His lament was that France's mandate over Syria did not include Palestine which was under Britain's mandate.
Syrian President Hafez Assad once told PLO leader Yassir Arafat:
You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian People, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.
Assad stated on March 8, 1974, "Palestine is a principal part of Southern Syria, and we consider that it is our right and duty to insist that it be a liberated partner of our Arab homeland and of Syria."
In the words of the late military commander of the PLO as well as member of the PLO Executive Council, Zuhair Muhsin:
There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity....yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.
The following are significant observations by Christians of the Arabs in Palestine in the 1800s:
The Arabs themselves, who are its inhabitants, cannot be considered but temporary residents. They pitched their tents in its grazing fields or built their places of refuge in its ruined cities. They created nothing in it. Since they were strangers to the land, they never became its masters. The desert wind that brought them hither could one day carry them away without their leaving behind them any sign of their passage through it.
Stephen Olin, D.D., L.L.D., called one of the most noted of American theologians after his extensive travels in the Middle East wrote of the Arabs in Palestine "...with slight exceptions they are probably all descendants of the old inhabitants of Syria."
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
...the Arab leadership realized how much more effective they could make their efforts to "throw the Jews into the sea" if they became Palestinians rather than Arabs. By then, the Jews of this country (the only people called Palestinians before the War of Independence) were named Israelis. Even The Palestine Post became The Jerusalem Post. By adopting the name 'Palestinians' the Arabs succeeded in converting the Arab-Israeli conflict from a war of annihilation against the Jewish population to a struggle of dispossessed natives against colonialist invaders. It was a spectacularly effective canard, eventually adopted by Israel's own fiction weavers, the 'new historians.'
- David Bar-Illan, The Jerusalem Post, 'Eye on the Media', November 5, 1999
What was the initial reaction of the Arabs of Palestine to this new and separate national identity?
...after the Six-Day War, when Yasser Arafat and Fatah tried to establish their infrastructures in what they referred to as the West Bank they were rejected by the Arabs themselves. Neil Livingstone and David Halevy wrote in Inside the PLO, "The effort, however, turned out to be one of Fatah's greatest failures, not so much because of Israeli efficiency in ferreting out the secret network as because of Palestinian apathy. At that point many Palestinians living in the West Bank were actually relieved to be out from under the oppressive yoke of Jordanian rule and simply wanted to find some kind of accommodation with the Israelis. Within months Arafat was forced to leave the West Bank on the run".
The Arab leaders are well aware of the fragility of the Palestinian identity for the majority of the Palestinian Arabs. This is the main reason why they have not allowed the Palestinian Arabs living in the refugee camps, for almost half a century, to intermingle with Arabs of their countries. Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri confirmed this on February 5, 1998 in an interview with London MBC Television. He said the following; "We do not want to fall into the trap of resettling the Palestinians. This would lead to resettling the Palestinian refugees and their eventual assimilation. The Palestinians themselves have consistently rejected this approach so that their cause and characteristic identity might not be lost".
When Al-Hariri said, "the Palestinians themselves rejected this approach", he missed one important word - leaders. It is the Palestinian leaders who try to prevent the assimilation of the Arabs among the Arabs. It is the Palestinian leaders who today more and more openly declare the Israeli Arabs to be their "property", to be an unquestionable part of the "Palestinian people". If Israel does not confront this dangerous tendency she arrives at an extremely perilous situation. There is a way to deal with this matter. Edward Said wrote that, "Unlike other peoples who suffered from a colonial experience, the Palestinians do not primarily feel that they have been exploited but that they have been excluded, denied the right to have a history of their own". Israel has an excellent chance to mend this problem. As was stated earlier, the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine tried to take on several different identities; none of them brought relief or happiness, most likely because all of them were artificial.
There is also genetic proof of european ancestry in africa. It's a proven fact that NOBODY denies. Yet you say we have no claim because we are a different race to present day africans.
OK, then by that reasoning ashkenazim and sephardim have no claim on EY because (while they share the Jewish religion) their race is different to ancient Judeans.
Newman, would you mind buy a brain ? (just kidding)
I already expleind that there is a diffrent between race, a biological term, and people, a social term. And, there is no Jewish race + Jews are simetes.
-
Dexter,
Neanderthals merged and bread with homosapiens but it is foolishness for anybody to claim they are neanderthal. Neanderthals are GONE.
As no canaanite religion, language or culture exists ANYWHERE today, there are NO canaanites. Canaanites are GONE, dust, a footnote in history. Show me ONE canaanite in EY practicing his religion or speaking his original language.
All you've printed is oppinion. Not proof.
-
It's not the race what matters, but ethnicity instead. Jews are not a race. And their genetic has not changed over 3000 years anyway, so even if they were race, it's exaclty the same race of Ancient Israelites.
Regarding colonialism, what if Europeans had sought the advice of Ravs about how to civilise America and Africa!!! Surely the Ravs would have asvised to teach Noahidism to them and not to steal from them. Today America and Africa would be Noahides!!! And Natives would have prserved their culture and language. Both Europeans and Natives would have changed from their mistakes, and now they would coexist in peace!!!!
-
Dexter,
Neanderthals merged and bread with homosapiens but it is foolishness for anybody to claim they are neanderthal. Neanderthals are GONE.
As no canaanite religion, language or culture exists ANYWHERE today, there are NO canaanites. Canaanites are GONE, dust, a footnote in history. Show me ONE canaanite in EY practicing his religion or speaking his original language.
All you've printed is oppinion. Not proof.
Neanderthals were destroyed as a race 29,000 years ago :P
Of course there is no canaanite religion, language (what about Hebrew?) or culture exists ANYWHERE today, and thet's because the canaanites marged with the Judeans and converted to Judaism or forcibly converted to Judaism.
canaanites are not one people but a gather of people who live in EY, Jews are one of them and that's why Jews are canaanites :)
And what I printed is facts, means, all the "P@alestinians" are Arabs and Arabs are not canaanites.
-
Dexter,
Neanderthals merged and bread with homosapiens but it is foolishness for anybody to claim they are neanderthal. Neanderthals are GONE.
As no canaanite religion, language or culture exists ANYWHERE today, there are NO canaanites. Canaanites are GONE, dust, a footnote in history. Show me ONE canaanite in EY practicing his religion or speaking his original language.
All you've printed is oppinion. Not proof.
Neanderthals were destroyed as a race 29,000 years ago :P
Wrong! They have discovered neanderthal genes in modern europeans proving that they mixed with homosapiens. Many did die out in the ice age, just as many canaanites were killed by Joshua but there is still a merging. The point is you CANNOT call yourself a canaanite as every trace of their existance has been dissolved.
Of course there is no canaanite religion, language (what about Hebrew?) or culture exists ANYWHERE today, and thet's because the canaanites marged with the Judeans and converted to Judaism or forcibly converted to Judaism.
And what I printed is facts, means, all the "P@alestinians" are Arabs and Arabs are not canaanites.
Prove that they're facts.
-
Wrong! They have discovered neanderthal genes in modern europeans proving that they mixed with homosapiens. Many did die out in the ice age, just as many canaanites were killed by Joshua but there is still a merging. The point is you CANNOT call yourself a canaanite as every trace of their existance has been dissolved.
Mitochondrial DNA extracted from ancient Neanderthal remains have been typed and found to differ significantly from human mitochondrial DNA. While the results do not indicate a common ancestry, a team of scientists in Germany have recovered and sequenced Y-chromosome DNA from a 49,000 year-old Neanderthal. The team estimates that H. sapiens sapiens and H. neanderthalensis may have shared a common ancestor in the Homo genus several hundred thousand years ago.
Again, many people lived in Canaan, and every people who lived there is canaanite because Cana'an is a region as P@lestine is. As there is no Canaanite people but in plural there is no P@lestinian people but in plural.
Prove that they're facts.
What will be the right proofe for you ?
-
Wrong again!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Neanderthals may have given the modern humans who replaced them a priceless gift -- a gene that helped them develop superior brains, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday.
And the only way they could have provided that gift would have been by interbreeding, the team at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Chicago said.
Their study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provides indirect evidence that modern Homo sapiens and so-called Neanderthals interbred at some point when they lived side by side in Europe.
"Finding evidence of mixing is not all that surprising. But our study demonstrates the possibility that interbreeding contributed advantageous variants into the human gene pool that subsequently spread," said Bruce Lahn, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute researcher at the University of Chicago who led the study.
Scientists have been debating whether Neanderthals, who died out about 35,000 years ago, ever bred with modern Homo sapiens. Neanderthals are considered more primitive, with robust bones but a smaller intellect than modern humans.
Lahn's team found a brain gene that appears to have entered the human lineage about 1.1 million years ago, and that has a modern form, or allele, that appeared about 37,000 years ago -- right before Neanderthals became extinct.
"The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development and has experienced positive selection in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens," the researchers wrote.
Positive selection means the gene conferred some sort of advantage, so that people who had it were more likely to have descendants than people who did not. Lahn's team estimated that 70 percent of all living humans have this type D variant of the gene.
"By no means do these findings constitute definitive proof that a Neanderthal was the source of the original copy of the D allele. However, our evidence shows that it is one of the best candidates," Lahn said.
The researchers reached their conclusions by doing a statistical analysis of the DNA sequence of microcephalin, which is known to play a role in regulating brain size in humans. Mutations in the human gene cause development of a much smaller brain, a condition called microcephaly.
By tracking smaller, more regular mutations, the researchers could look at DNA's "genetic clock" and date the original genetic variant to 37,000 years ago.
They noted that this D allele is very common in Europe, where Neanderthals lived, and more rare in Africa, where they did not. Lahn said it is not yet clear what advantage the D allele gives the human brain.
"The D alleles may not even change brain size; they may only make the brain a bit more efficient if it indeed affects brain function," Lahn said.
Now his team is looking for evidence of Neanderthal origin for other human genes.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html
So again. Just because there was some mergence 300+ years ago you are not canaanite.
Again, many people lived in Canaan, and every people who lived there is canaanite because Cana'an is a region as P@lestine is. As there is no Canaanite people but in plural there is no P@lestinian people but in plural.
By that stupid reasoning, you're also a p@lestinian and I'm an aborigine AND a dutchmanbecause this country was once called gondwanaland and then New Holland. :::D :::D
-
Boer is right about our claims to africa. If all life started in africa, europeans DID have a million year claim.
Also, Brits are a keltic/norman people. Both the kelts and normans originated in the Indian sub continent. So they have a right to India, too.
All Europeans origin is of the Caucasus. They came Europe at 3000 B.C.E
Wrong!
Anyway what we can say very briefly is that almost all of European people, except the Basque in Spain , the Magyar in Hungary and the Finns in Finland, speak languages of the same origin and then come from the same place, i.e. a vast area extending across Iran and Afghanistan to the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, in short a geographic area close to the Aral Sea, in Central Asia, from where they have spread by colonization throughout the Western World, that is to say Europe and later America after the Discovery of America by Christopher Columbus (Cristoforo Colombo) in 1492.
In fact originally a group of nomadic tribes, the Aryans also known as the Indo-Europeans according to the name given later by scholars, were part of a great migratory movement that spread in successive waves from Central Asia during the 2d millennium BC and penetrated India, Iran and finally Europe throughout Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.
The Indo-European languages have the same characteristics with respect to vocabulary and grammar so that many scholars have postulated that they are all descended from an original parent language, called Proto-Indo-European.
One theory of the origin of the individual Indo-European languages suggests that, as the ancient speakers of Proto-Indo-European migrated or moved away from each other, losing contact, their language broke up into a number of tongues.
These tongues later also split up still further, eventually giving rise to the many modern Indo-European languages that are:
-ROMANCE GROUP[ Latin and then Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian]
-GERMANIC GROUP [German, English, Celtic, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish]
-GREEK GROUP[Ancient and Modern Greek]
-SLAVIC GROUP[Russian, Polish, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Czech]
-ILLYRIAN GROUP[Albanian].
http://en.allexperts.com/q/European-History-670/origin-europeans.htm
-
ok, so keeping in mind Dexter's claim that the Israelites merged with the Canaanites.
Muslims, being an ofshoot of Judaism, therfore have claim to EY! Even more so, Christianity. The first Christians were Jews, and therefore, seeing that Jews have claim to EY, Christians of today, just as much as Jews today, have claim to EY-as both their ancestors have claim.
So therefore, EY belongs to Palestine, get out colonisers!
-
Also, to keep you happy Dexter, let's just assume 200million savages were killed by European Christian colonialism.
Now, let's look at Judaism. Consisting of only a population of only 15 million, the Jews managed to kill 200 million people(Karl Marx, Communism etc).
It goes both ways Dexter
-
ok, so keeping in mind Dexter's claim that the Israelites merged with the Canaanites.
Muslims, being an ofshoot of Judaism, therfore have claim to EY! Even more so, Christianity. The first Christians were Jews, and therefore, seeing that Jews have claim to EY, Christians of today, just as much as Jews today, have claim to EY-as both their ancestors have claim.
So therefore, EY belongs to Eretz Yisrael, get out colonisers!
Mislims and Chrstians copied some aspects of Judaism and distorted it. They never converted to Judaism, and so have no right. I can also invent a cult based on Shinto, but it will never give me a right on Japan!!!!!!
-
ok, so keeping in mind Dexter's claim that the Israelites merged with the Canaanites.
Muslims, being an ofshoot of Judaism, therfore have claim to EY! Even more so, Christianity. The first Christians were Jews, and therefore, seeing that Jews have claim to EY, Christians of today, just as much as Jews today, have claim to EY-as both their ancestors have claim.
So therefore, EY belongs to Eretz Yisrael, get out colonisers!
Mislims and Chrstians copied some aspects of Judaism and distorted it. They never converted to Judaism, and so have no right. I can also invent a cult based on Shinto, but it will never give me a right on Japan!!!!!!
No. We included ALL of the OT. Christianity has the seed of Judaism, and therefore can have a claim on EY. Besides, the ancestors of Jews, are the same ancestors of Christianity-therefore, if Jews can make use of their ancestry, then Christianity is entitled to it as well.
-
Now, let's look at Judaism. Consisting of only a population of only 15 million, the Jews managed to kill 200 million people(Karl Marx, Communism etc).
Excuse me? You are a Nazi if you believe that.
-
In truth only the Jews have the most legitimate claim to a land. G-d told the Jews (publicly) the Torah, and in that Torah has said that the portion of Israel belongs to them, while all the other nations in truth rob and kill each other for land and resources and at the same time calling the Jews thieves.
-
Now, let's look at Judaism. Consisting of only a population of only 15 million, the Jews managed to kill 200 million people(Karl Marx, Communism etc).
Excuse me? You are a Nazi if you believe that.
He doesn't believe it.
We're just playing devil's advocate to highlight the stupidity of Dexter's arguments.
DISCLAIMER:
The last few posts of myself AND Boergeneral are NOT our beliefs. Far from it. We are simply transposing Dexter's logic onto the anti-Israel argument to highlight it's silliness.
-
well it has to be stated right away as such. Anyway to say JUDAISM is responsible for things like communism, etc. is completely misguiding. Karl Marx wasn't even brought up with the minimum of a Jewish education. In-fact I believe his parents were self haters and converted to Christianity (which makes them all Karet, and not having a connection to Judaism and Jews).
-
well it has to be stated right away as such. Anyway to say JUDAISM is responsible for things like communism, etc. is completely misguiding. Karl Marx wasn't even brought up with the minimum of a Jewish education. In-fact I believe his parents were self haters and converted to Christianity (which makes them all Karet, and not having a connection to Judaism and Jews).
You're right.
And I say again..........
DISCLAIMER:
The last few posts of myself AND Boergeneral are NOT our beliefs. Far from it. We are simply transposing Dexter's logic onto the anti-Israel argument to highlight it's silliness.
-
Hi TZVI
Ofcourse NOT! I am simply stating to Dexter, that if he can claim that European conolisation killed 200 million people, and by him saying that "evil europeans", then the it can be said that Karl Marx, whom ws Jewish-whom's evil ideas contributed to the deats of millions, can be deposited to Judaism.
I am NOT the thinker of these ideas, however, it goes to prove a point.
-
Now, let's look at Judaism. Consisting of only a population of only 15 million, the Jews managed to kill 200 million people(Karl Marx, Communism etc).
Excuse me? You are a Nazi if you believe that.
He doesn't believe it.
We're just playing devil's advocate to highlight the stupidity of Dexter's arguments.
DISCLAIMER:
The last few posts of myself AND Boergeneral are NOT our beliefs. Far from it. We are simply transposing Dexter's logic onto the anti-Israel argument to highlight it's silliness.
Yes, what Newman said.
Devil's Advocate :D
-
ok, so keeping in mind Dexter's claim that the Israelites merged with the Canaanites.
Muslims, being an ofshoot of Judaism, therfore have claim to EY! Even more so, Christianity. The first Christians were Jews, and therefore, seeing that Jews have claim to EY, Christians of today, just as much as Jews today, have claim to EY-as both their ancestors have claim.
So therefore, EY belongs to Eretz Yisrael, get out colonisers!
Mislims and Chrstians copied some aspects of Judaism and distorted it. They never converted to Judaism, and so have no right. I can also invent a cult based on Shinto, but it will never give me a right on Japan!!!!!!
No. We included ALL of the OT. Christianity has the seed of Judaism, and therefore can have a claim on EY. Besides, the ancestors of Jews, are the same ancestors of Christianity-therefore, if Jews can make use of their ancestry, then Christianity is entitled to it as well.
Very wrong. I can creat a cult and include the whole Hindu scriptures in my cult. Even some Hindus can be my leaders, but I have no right to India. By your logic, anyone who owns a copy of the Tanach (It's not Tanach), has a right on Israel. Silly point! Christians and Muslims NEVER coverted to Judaism, they haven't underwent even a Reform "conversion"!!! I also have a Koran translation, I don't believe in the whole of it, but I believe some verses about the Unicity of G-d are right. So, I can claim soveregnty on Arabia!!!!!!
-
ok, so keeping in mind Dexter's claim that the Israelites merged with the Canaanites.
Muslims, being an ofshoot of Judaism, therfore have claim to EY! Even more so, Christianity. The first Christians were Jews, and therefore, seeing that Jews have claim to EY, Christians of today, just as much as Jews today, have claim to EY-as both their ancestors have claim.
So therefore, EY belongs to Eretz Yisrael, get out colonisers!
Mislims and Chrstians copied some aspects of Judaism and distorted it. They never converted to Judaism, and so have no right. I can also invent a cult based on Shinto, but it will never give me a right on Japan!!!!!!
No. We included ALL of the OT. Christianity has the seed of Judaism, and therefore can have a claim on EY. Besides, the ancestors of Jews, are the same ancestors of Christianity-therefore, if Jews can make use of their ancestry, then Christianity is entitled to it as well.
Very wrong. I can creat a cult and include the whole Hindu scriptures in my cult. Even some Hindus can be my leaders, but I have no right to India. By your logic, anyone who owns a copy of the Tanach (It's not Tanach), has a right on Israel. Silly point! Christians and Muslims NEVER coverted to Judaism, they haven't underwent even a Reform "conversion"!!! I also have a Koran translation, I don't believe in the whole of it, but I believe some verses about the Unicity of G-d are right. So, I can claim soveregnty on Arabia!!!!!!
no, but Jews converted to Christianity! Im not talking about papers here. Im talking about flesh. People whom carried the Jewish Claim in their blood, and once converted, STILL held those claims. The fact that Jesus was himself Jewish, could be seen as arguably transfering those rights unto Christians.
I know, it's upsard, but that's why im using this example, because it goes with the same mentality Dexter is using.
-
Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!
-
Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!
1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.
2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.
-
Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!
1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.
2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.
If Jesus had children, certainly they atr not the ancestors of todays Christians.
The descendants of heretics cannot be judged, but if a Christian claims to have rights on Israel, ( as Boer said), can prove an interupted matrilineal Jewish descent, considers himself a Jew and at the same time he follows another religion, then he would be heretical himself and can be judged if he goes to Israel and there is a Sanhedrin, according to some opinions.... Other say that martlineal descent is only valid up till three generations
-
the Jews who were the followers of Jesus were very few. + they differed from the church and the Christians of today. I heard that they were killed and/or converted by the Islamists who came and took over Saudi Arabia. Either way even if some christians do have Jewish ancestry they aren't Jews + the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of Christians didn't come from Jews, but from gentiles in the Roman empire (especially after this Roman emperor became a Christian and made it the official religion.
-
Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!
1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.
2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.
If Jesus had children, certainly they atr not the ancestors of todays Christians.
The descendants of heretics cannot be judged, but if a Christian claims to have rights on Israel, ( as Boer said), can prove an interupted matrilineal Jewish descent, considers himself a Jew and at the same time he follows another religion, then he would be heretical himself and can be judged if he goes to Israel and there is a Sanhedrin, according to some opinions.... Other say that martlineal descent is only valid up till three generations
Wrong.
They would be considered as 'abducted babies' and not subject to a charge of herresy.
-
"Abducted babies" if they do not that they are Jewish, or if they don't believe in Judaism at all. But in case they care to prove Jewish matrilineal descent, consider themselves Jewish, and refuse to return, it may be heresy. Anyway I doubt that any Christian is Hallachcally Jewish from the time of Jesus. The only Christian Jews may be some Bnei Anusim, and they can, in fact, be considered abducted
-
Jesus had no children and do no descendants. And Jews who converted to Christianity are still Jewish as long they can prove a direct matrilineal descent. But natives in Ancient Israel had a law that says any hereric Jew is punished, so if they can prove a matrilineal descent and wish to be judged by a Sanhedrin in Israel, they'd be very wellcome. Remember that Christianity and some other religions are allowed to Goyim, but not for Jews!!!
1/Yeshu DID have children and he used to kiss Mary Magdelen on the mouth.
2/The decendents of heretical Jews cannot be tried any more than the decendants of a murderer.
If Jesus had children, certainly they atr not the ancestors of todays Christians.
The descendants of heretics cannot be judged, but if a Christian claims to have rights on Israel, ( as Boer said), can prove an interupted matrilineal Jewish descent, considers himself a Jew and at the same time he follows another religion, then he would be heretical himself and can be judged if he goes to Israel and there is a Sanhedrin, according to some opinions.... Other say that martlineal descent is only valid up till three generations
Just a reminder, Christians do NOT calim Eretz Yisrael
It was simply a constructed opinion to prove a point.
-
Newman, Boeregeneraal, your posts show that ignorance produce self confidence more than it produce the will to know and to understand: those who know few, and not much, specifically are the ones that garments into a nice cover of literal gather of words and discuss in an arrogant way of speech.
Colonialism wasn't nicer to the Natives more than the Africans and Indian-American were, and there is no reason for you to defend Colonialism because it's seems to you try to prevent yourself of taking the responsibility, as Europeans, of what happend in the Colonialist era, because you shouldn't and there is no reason for you to deny Colonialism was evil as I can not deny how Jews were part of the slave-trade. Furthermore, the first subject was on Colonialism and Nazism, both were evil and cruel and both were extremely arrogant over other types of people. When you compare something to Nazism you try to make your point as clear as possible and not actually say it's Nazism. But, since in your ludicrous try to mock me with an absurd-type of counter argument to mine and show your amazing sudden thoughts over and over again and again is just a shame for Human intelligence, I'll have to make my points as clear as possible.
Well, I asked why doesn't the land of America and Africa (SA, for example) belong to the Natives. Newman claimed stupid semi-Nazi claims in the spirit of Eugenics ideas. Now, you claim it doesn't belong to the Natives because you can claim it for millions of millions of years, not to fergot, of course, that Black and Whites were the same race "millions of millions of million ago.." and that there weren't people or nations in the social form of today so no narrative can be built. The Boers and the Americans (Whites) have right on SA and America because they are already formed as people as a result of Colonialism, while the Arabs in EY are the remains of the Arab Imprealism. I never claimed Whites don't have right on America or SA, I just asked why the Indians doesn't, and they do have right on America as Blacks have rights on Africa.
Not only that Jews have rights on EY as every people have rights on his Homeland as a natural right of any nation, Americans, both Whites, Blacks and Indians have right on America. Boers and Blacks have rights on the Same piece of land. On the other hand, the Arabs who live in EY don't have right on EY for the simple reason they are not separate people of the Arabs so they don't really have right on any land but on Arabia, South of today's kingdom of Jordan and part of the Persian gulf.
Now, I hope everything is clear.
-
Newman, Boeregeneraal, your posts show that ignorance produce self confidence more than it produce the will to know and to understand: those who know few, and not much, specifically are the ones that garments into a nice cover of literal gather of words and discuss in an arrogant way of speech.
Colonialism wasn't nicer to the Natives more than the Africans and Indian-American were, and there is no reason for you to defend Colonialism because it's seems to you try to prevent yourself of taking the responsibility, as Europeans, of what happend in the Colonialist era, because you shouldn't and there is no reason for you to deny Colonialism was evil as I can not deny how Jews were part of the slave-trade. Furthermore, the first subject was on Colonialism and Nazism, both were evil and cruel and both were extremely arrogant over other types of people. When you compare something to Nazism you try to make your point as clear as possible and not actually say it's Nazism. But, since in your ludicrous try to mock me with an absurd-type of counter argument to mine and show your amazing sudden thoughts over and over again and again is just a shame for Human intelligence, I'll have to make my points as clear as possible.
Well, I asked why doesn't the land of America and Africa (SA, for example) belong to the Natives. Newman claimed stupid semi-Nazi claims in the spirit of Eugenics ideas. Now, you claim it doesn't belong to the Natives because you can claim it for millions of millions of years, not to fergot, of course, that Black and Whites were the same race "millions of millions of million ago.." and that there weren't people or nations in the social form of today so no narrative can be built. The Boers and the Americans (Whites) have right on SA and America because they are already formed as people as a result of Colonialism, while the Arabs in EY are the remains of the Arab Imprealism. I never claimed Whites don't have right on America or SA, I just asked why the Indians doesn't, and they do have right on America as Blacks have rights on Africa.
Not only that Jews have rights on EY as every people have rights on his Homeland as a natural right of any nation, Americans, both Whites, Blacks and Indians have right on America. Boers and Blacks have rights on the Same piece of land. On the other hand, the Arabs who live in EY don't have right on EY for the simple reason they are not separate people of the Arabs so they don't really have right on any land but on Arabia, South of today's kingdom of Jordan and part of the Persian gulf.
Now, I hope everything is clear.
I refuse to put the people of two to five hundred years ago under such rediculous 21st century scrutiny.
I also maintain that the savages of the world must be managed by those more able. Retards are put in homes, children are parented, apes put in zoos. Thus savages must be colonised.
-
Newman, Boeregeneraal, your posts show that ignorance produce self confidence more than it produce the will to know and to understand: those who know few, and not much, specifically are the ones that garments into a nice cover of literal gather of words and discuss in an arrogant way of speech.
Colonialism wasn't nicer to the Natives more than the Africans and Indian-American were, and there is no reason for you to defend Colonialism because it's seems to you try to prevent yourself of taking the responsibility, as Europeans, of what happend in the Colonialist era, because you shouldn't and there is no reason for you to deny Colonialism was evil as I can not deny how Jews were part of the slave-trade. Furthermore, the first subject was on Colonialism and Nazism, both were evil and cruel and both were extremely arrogant over other types of people. When you compare something to Nazism you try to make your point as clear as possible and not actually say it's Nazism. But, since in your ludicrous try to mock me with an absurd-type of counter argument to mine and show your amazing sudden thoughts over and over again and again is just a shame for Human intelligence, I'll have to make my points as clear as possible.
Well, I asked why doesn't the land of America and Africa (SA, for example) belong to the Natives. Newman claimed stupid semi-Nazi claims in the spirit of Eugenics ideas. Now, you claim it doesn't belong to the Natives because you can claim it for millions of millions of years, not to fergot, of course, that Black and Whites were the same race "millions of millions of million ago.." and that there weren't people or nations in the social form of today so no narrative can be built. The Boers and the Americans (Whites) have right on SA and America because they are already formed as people as a result of Colonialism, while the Arabs in EY are the remains of the Arab Imprealism. I never claimed Whites don't have right on America or SA, I just asked why the Indians doesn't, and they do have right on America as Blacks have rights on Africa.
Not only that Jews have rights on EY as every people have rights on his Homeland as a natural right of any nation, Americans, both Whites, Blacks and Indians have right on America. Boers and Blacks have rights on the Same piece of land. On the other hand, the Arabs who live in EY don't have right on EY for the simple reason they are not separate people of the Arabs so they don't really have right on any land but on Arabia, South of today's kingdom of Jordan and part of the Persian gulf.
Now, I hope everything is clear.
I refuse to put the people of two to five hundred years ago under such rediculous 21st century scrutiny.
I also maintain that the savages of the world must be managed by those more able. Retards are put in homes, children are parented, apes put in zoos. Thus savages must be colonised.
Yet you say Muhammad was a rapist and evil.
The "savges" don't must to be Colonised but to have trade connecetion with the European that will effect them for the good.
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
-
Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].[censored] colonisation >:(
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.
When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?
-
Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].deleted colonisation >:(
That's exactly what Israel should have done in the event of the Intifada.
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.
When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?
Thanks to modern health care more and more arabs manage to survive, than if they were without western medication.
Finally our western healthcare in those countries, is going to facilitate the hordes to grow in number, that want to conquer our lands.
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.
When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?
Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?
It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.
When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?
Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?
It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!
Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.
-
Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].deleted colonisation >:(
That's exactly what Israel should have done in the event of the Intifada.
What is intifada?
-
Whoever thinks that british people were nice must ssee what happened in Jallianwala Bagh massacre where Brigadier Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1650 rounds were fired, or 33 rounds per soldier. Official (Raj) sources placed the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr. Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2].deleted colonisation >:(
That's exactly what Israel should have done in the event of the Intifada.
What is intifada?
Intifada means resistance in Arabic and it refers to two cruel riots that the Arabs started at 1987 and 2000.
-
Ambiorix are you supporting this massacre
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.
When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?
Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?
It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!
Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.
THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BRITAIN ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN 1807 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.
When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?
Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?
It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!
Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.
THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BRITAIN ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN 1807 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doesn't metter, the crimes already done and slavery existed because of British/Spenish and French colonialism for half a century. And yet you fergot that even though Slavery was aolished officely there were other ways to utilize the population or just reduce their space living for expending you colony as the American did.
-
If colonists are so evil, why didn't they just wipe the savages out? They certainly could have if they'd want to.
Why did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care?
That's the reason YOU have less rights than an adult. You need to be managed until you develope fully.
Because they utilize them, dead slave is no usefull one.
When did the British teach them to read, educate them and provide health care ?
Ever heard of "The white man's burdon"?
It's common knowledge that Britain tought the third world to read. Even Britain's enemies admit that. All those schools, missions, medical centres and hospitals built by the Brits throughout africa/asia weren't just for the tiny white ex-patriot populations!
Means thet slavery was right ? I wish they would give the Africans and Indians educatetion and provide health care instead of enslaving and massacar tham.
THEY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BRITAIN ABOLISHED SLAVERY IN 1807 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doesn't metter, the crimes already done and slavery existed because of British/Spenish and French colonialism for half a century. And yet you fergot that even though Slavery was aolished officely there were other ways to utilize the population or just reduce their space living for expending you colony as the American did.
Notice that you NEVER, EVER hear a black carribean islander complaining about the British sending his ancestors there?
That's because they're 100 times better off today because of the British.
-
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.
-
Ambiorix are you supporting this massacre
Of course I don't think shooting unarmed civilians for fun is right.
But now-days in Europe, we'll gonna need an army killing the mohammedans.
The Indians had the intention nation-wide to become independent.
These soldiers were supposed to protect the English Crown, don't forget.
If you don't use force, or have the ability and the will to use it,
at the end you'll loose , no matter how good your diplomacy works.
I think the decision made to fire upon these people,was made in a act of panic.
You know if you let thousands of people protest, it becomes uncontrollable.
In that time there were no water cannons...
Belgian authorities in Congo did things far worse.
I think the Britons needed to act firmly against any uprising to prevent India from becoming independent.
Apart from that I'll give an example where force isn't used, you get more problems:
You know what you get if you don't use force against arabs e.g.?
Intifada, the day you retreat from Gaza, you get rockets from the very abandoned region.
In Paris (see jtf.org) we need a police fore that is willing to shoot back at these kind of thugs,
now it lasted for 4 days. Perhaps , they were able to fight back more resolute.
The other time it took 3 weeks .
i put up of couple of post regarding the situation in Europe.
I think you worry too much about the victims of colonisation by Europeans, but that you still don't realise, the colonisation of the Western World is taking place now.
At the end , we'll loose:
Unless a miracle happens, Europe will be having an Intifada in England or France, that will mark the beginning of a war to fully Islamise Europe.
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13056.0
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13045.0
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=13042.0
-
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.
-
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 ;D 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.
-
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 ;D 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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"! :::D
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.
-
BTW,
How many slaves did Britain take?
How many died?
Quote some real numbers.
-
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"! :::D
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
:P
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 ?
-
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?
-
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
-
"00 million indians killed in the Americas? :::D
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!!!!!! :::D :::D
-
"00 million indians killed in the Americas? :::D
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!!!!!! :::D :::D
Proove it.
BTW, why do reading just now ?
-
"00 million indians killed in the Americas? :::D
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!!!!!! :::D :::D
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.
-
"00 million indians killed in the Americas? :::D
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!!!!!! :::D :::D
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.
-
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
-
"00 million indians killed in the Americas? :::D
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!!!!!! :::D :::D
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
-
"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
-
"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!
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
"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 ?
-
http://newmexiken.com/archives/2005/06/005824.php
-
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 ?
Well, since we are assuming that everything on the history channel is truth. Fine then. Those bad europeans killed millions.
But also, since HC is true, ALL programs are therefore true!
So, the Holocaust did NOT happen.
Jews are evil people
Jews are trying to rule the world
Jews killed 200 million people
etc
etc
That sounds balanced now doesn't it dexter