Thread 216699724

my great granpa literally fought nazis and then stalinists killed him and some nigger whose ancestors brits caught in the net and shipped to america has a better life, is it fair? i don't think so

Brits didn't capture anyone, they bought it from other Africans. Btw you're spiritually black according to Haitians

>>216699724 (OP)
*gunshots*
Hehe
*neighbor dies of crack*
yeah
*toddler gets mauled by pitbull*
you have it
*iq drops from lead paint in the walls
so much
*gets racially profiled
harder anon

>>216699743
yeah i would rather be a black man living in america
>>216699768
this is literally gas chamber vs cotton picking comparison

>>216699743
>Brits didn't capture anyone
Many did but t it depends on which part and the source of the slave.

>they bought it from other Africans.
Africans, mixed Euro-Africans, Euros. The industry eas pretty unuronically diverse. Also being able to supply and hire gunmen to do the raiding was a big factor too.

>>216699724 (OP)
At least you have your dignity doggy. Being a minority isn’t all it’s cracked up to be doggy. I am proud to be an American though. God, I love this country.

>>216700092
>Many did but t it depends on which part and the source of the slave.
They didn't
>Africans, mixed Euro-Africans, Euros. The industry eas pretty unuronically diverse. Also being able to supply and hire gunmen to do the raiding was a big factor too.
African kingdoms were doing the raids, buying guns from Europeans and selling the slaves. There was nothing diverse about african economies, much less "industries". The slave strade was banned before Europeans divided Africa between themselves. By the 1600s there was already a ton of slaves in the Americas and Europeans only had small outposts for trade in the west African coast

>>216700202
>African kingdoms were doing the raids, buying guns from Europeans and selling the slaves
Did you just ignore what I said?

>There was nothing diverse about african economies, much less "industries".
They were pretty diverse prior to and during the slave trade. You do know they were atill reducing finished products as well as exporting crops and resources?

>The slave strade was banned before Europeans divided Africa between themselves.
Europeans? The timeline for each of them radically varied and even the governments got oneecapped in actually rolling out abolition due to major lobbying. Britain had to do a buyout to even get it to pass. Europeans and locals African plantation states both came up with their own ways to bypass it anyway

>Europeans only had small outposts for trade in the west African coast
Many if them were already pretty well established and made notable contact with local states and merchants.

>>216699743
>Btw you're spiritually black according to Haitians
Where did you take that "spiritually" from?
Free Haiti had openly anti-white only-blacks-allowed policy so in order to make an exception we were to be treated as blacks law-wise you stupid makak
How is this relevant to the question anyway

>>216700304
>Free Haiti had openly anti-white only-blacks-allowed
White traders, merchants and ships were still making business with Haiti. Ideally due to the sanctions. After that several white traders and merchants moved into Haiti over the years with the German minority having a notable impact due to them marrying into elite Haitian circles.

>>216699724 (OP)
My gfs family has a similar back story but her grandpa escaped to Canada then here. He actually hates Russians MORE than Germans.

>>216700258
>Europeans? The timeline for each of them radically varied and even the governments got oneecapped in actually rolling out abolition due to major lobbying. Britain had to do a buyout to even get it to pass. Europeans and locals African plantation states both came up with their own ways to bypass it anyway
Nothing you said relates to my comment. My statement is based on the fact that Europeans had no control over Africa at the time and that it only came in the 19th century while the colonies started in the 16th century. The peak exportations of slaves happened centuries before the Berlin conference. Therefore it was obviously Africans that had the means to capture slaves, excluding Europeans from that cost save.
>Many if them were already pretty well established and made notable contact with local states and merchants.
Again, it doesn't change what I said. Those were nothing but outpost to trade with those same African kingdoms I mentioned before. It wasn't some big fortresses with tons of men to invade and capture Africans and that's exactly what you're trying to pass here as a fact.

Btw slavery abolishment happened at different timings for every country, but all of them happened before the Berlin conference with the exception of Brazil that did it 100% in 1889 even though it was almost abolished before that trough many laws

>>216700346
What the fuck were they thinking? Shouldn’t they have seen the writing on the wall and moved back to Europe?

>>216700384
>outpost to trade with those same African kingdoms
With weaponry, a realize level of decision making and fielding many key staff and private entities. It wasn't some marginal outpost. More so since having these outpost built up and constructed was a key part of the Euro-African trade of finished goods, crops like palm, minerals and slaves

>>216700384
>Btw slavery abolishment happened at different timings for every country
The thing about formal abolishment is that pretty much every regional power or African state found ways to workaround it by coming up with replacements or equivalents. Many used Asian coolies, others basically just renamed the status and labour dynamics remained.

>It wasn't some big fortresses with tons of men to invade and capture Africans and that's exactly what you're trying to pass here as a fact.
Portugal was almost doing that with it's military attempts in Angola multiple times until Kongo collapsed. That and cutting in on state boundaries with Kongo earlier by doing slave incursions into Kongo despite both having an agreement on not doing slavery raids onto the others lands

>>216700411
Again, nothing you said affects what I wrote. I said those outposts were used for trade, you confirmed it. The palm oil was only a thing after 1800s when the majority of African slave trade was already over.
I'm talking about 1500-1800 (start, peak and end of the colonies) you're talking about 1800-1950. How is that any proof of Europeans capturing slaves? Lol

>>216699724 (OP)
Poles are the niggers of whites, come collect your reparations seba

>>216700475
>The thing about formal abolishment is that pretty much every regional power or African state found ways to workaround it by coming up with replacements or equivalents. Many used Asian coolies, others basically just renamed the status and labour dynamics remained.
Lol no. The majority of the Americas abolished slavery during the 1780-1850s, but that's just the year marking the official end. Brazil, for example, had over 20 laws giving freedom to slaves before 1889. The whole law evading you're talking about happened way before that when anglos were blockading slave trade, but Africans did keep the slave trade alive after it, just not with the new world.
>Portugal was almost doing that with it's military attempts in Angola multiple times until Kongo collapsed. That and cutting in on state boundaries with Kongo earlier by doing slave incursions into Kongo despite both having an agreement on not doing slavery raids onto the others lands
The British were blockading slave trade way before Portugal took over anything in Kongo or Angola. Plus Brazil was already free from Portugal in 1822.