BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:24 PM

It is a bit of a shame that so many are using this thread to try to imply that "other people" were worse slavers than the writer of tuhe post. All of the nations of Britain, and Ireland, have a strong historic connection with slavery, as has probably every other nation in the world. My own ancesteors(chielfy Cornish, Devon and Cumbrrian) come from areas particularly associated with the maritime industries in the 1500-1800 period, and of course at that timeslaving was a huge part of that indistry. Now, whether my ancestors were personally involved I have no means of finding out, but I imagine it is perfectly likely. In fact, it is a statistival virtual certainty that all posters to this thread are (a) descended from slavers and (b) descended from slave.
    The question is, what might we do about it it? And trying to imply that certain nations or ethnic groups weren't implicated is ludicrous. In the old days, every natiom)however you care to derfine that term) was guilty.
    And to Divis Sweeney: the quote from the Flying Cloud, as I should thought was blindingly obvious, was to give a harrowing immediate and chilling account of what was commonplace then throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Folksong, as is often the cae, can give us a closer look at history than many books of scholarship.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:57 PM

Sorry Den - I forgot about your other patron saint, Brigid. You are wrong however to deny that Patrick is a patron saint of Ireland, and the one most people will know, and also has the advantage over Brigid of actually having existed!

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Den
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:20 PM

Greg, I objected only to your terminolgy. I felt that your use of the word "notorious" was unwieldy and in context unjustified.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Den
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:36 PM

Les, Brigid is the patron saint of Ireland. There can only be one. As for your comment that she didn't exist. That is unfathomable. Brigid as all Irish scolars will tell you was born in Faughart, near Dundalk, County Louth. Its also lucky to hang a Saint Brigid's cross in your home. You might want to try that.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:52 PM

Greg gives us an account of Irish slavers, when did we have a fleet of slavers, a few raids to north-west Britain in the dim and distant pass [3rd century], which gave us St Patrick. The small leather curraghs used would have been incapable of carrying two or three persons.
I would think more of our people were made slaves of than most countries in Europe, thousands were transported to the West Indies by Cromwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:33 PM

My girlriend has a Saint Brigid cross in her house. But the tradition of burning it on Imbolc and getting a new one - doesn't that strike you as a bit pagan?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:20 PM

I would also like to read that account Ard mhacha. Really can't think of where these Irish fleets sailed from, was it Howth ? Belfast Bay ? Larne ? or Cove ?

Always willing to listen. Divis.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:47 PM

Les, almost every christian tradition has a pagan connotation, the location of most churches were previously pagan sites, Christmas, Easter and many other festivals were previously pagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:57 PM

History as far back as the third century is at best well educated supposition. The Romans were on their way out or already gone from most places. The indiginous celts and picts had no written language. As far as we can tell the 'viking' style longboats were used in raids on the coast of Britain from all over the place. I do not believe for one minute that the Irish were more adept at those raids than anyone else or that they took more slaves than others but it does seem to be taken as read that all races took their fair share of people in those raids. I believe it would be up to the revisionists to prove anything else. Not that this realy has any bearing on the subject in question!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:53 PM

Is Tony Blair saying sorry for things this far back ? or is it since the times of the Commonwealth ? Please let me know so I can write to Bertie Ahern.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:48 PM

Teribus - "..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims" I will stand by that statement Dianavan because it can be easily proven to be true, it is extremely well documented and cannot be denied.


So what does that have to with Blair apologizing for Britain?

Are you saying that no apology is due because others did it too or are you saying its O.K. for Britain to continue human exploitation because Arabs/Muslims do it?

I'm saying that it would be more meaningful if Blair did something to stop the present human rights abuses than to apologize for something that happened so long ago. I'm sure it makes little difference to the victims of today that Blair is apologizing for yesterday.

Blair is such a puffball.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:22 PM

Teribus - "..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims" I will stand by that statement Dianavan because it can be easily proven to be true, it is extremely well documented and cannot be denied.

I also would like to see some documentation confirming this

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:49 PM

I take it then Guest Mohammed Smith that you do not come from either Mauritania or Sudan.

Simply Google "Modern Day Slavery" and read it all for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:05 AM

Teribus, further up this Thread you state in one of your long winded replies that Skibereen was raided by north African pirates, Baltimore in County Cork was raided and a number of English settlers were taken from that town,there was never any record of Skibereen being raided, Also please provide the "Ports" in Ireland used by the north Africans when they raided the English coast. remember that England had by that time almost complete rule in Ireland, apart from Ulster.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:44 AM

And I take it you don't come from Hawick, in that case, Bill.
Googled as you directed, and found loads of stuff about the Transatlantic Slave Trade 1807-2007, plus a ton of stuff about Child soldiers.
No statistics, however to prove your contention that 'Arabs/Muslims' are the chief perpetrators of the today.

Can you please provide your evidence, instead of asking me to prove your own point for you.

Provide the figures, Teribus

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:27 AM

As requested Guest Mohammed Smith:

Holocaust: The Numbers (Take note Mohammed Smith - the figures given below are only from the East African Slave Trade)
Due to the enormous length of the Arab Slave Trade, from 700 to 1911AD, it is impossible to be certain of the numbers of Africans sold in this system. Estimates place the numbers somewhere around 14 million: at least 9.6 million African women and 4.4 African men.


It has been estimated that in all, at least 14 to 20 MILLION African men, women and children died throughout this trade. (Photos and Information courtesy of The Black Holocaust for Beginners by SE Anderson, A Pictorial History of the Slave Trade, Slave Trade of Eastern Africa by Beachy, Slavery in the Arab World by Gordon Murray and Africa in History by Basil Davidson)

The only glaring inaccuracy in the piece given above is the last date given 1911AD, the trade still flourishes to this day - UN estimates 90,000 Blank African Slaves (predominantly of the Dinka Tribe) are enslaved in Sudan, while over 100,000 are held as slaves in Mauritania - as far I can ascertain Mohhammed there are none in Hawick.

More to follow Mohammed......

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame at slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:27 AM

Perhaps if the heading of the thread had been modified slightly, as I've done above this post, we might have avoided going off in the direction that led greg to write:
It is a bit of a shame that so many are using this thread to try to imply that "other people" were worse slavers than the writer of the post.

Slavery does continue to exist in various forms - and not just in places far away, like Mauretania. Pretty obviously any repudiation of past involvement in the slave trade is hollow, unless it goes along with continued vigilance in abolishing it, and preventing it reawakening in some other form.

But there's no point in using that as a kind of diversionary tactic, a way of making the Atlantic slave trade seem less outrageous in retrospect. The point of any such comparison should be the other way round - to shock people into recognising that what is still happening today is a continuation of what the slave traders did then.

For an analogy: prejudice and oppression of gypsies continues in the modern world, but no one would argue on that basis that somehow the genocide carried out of gypsies by the Nazis was not all that out of the ordinary. Rather they'd point out that in one way such actions were a continuation of what the Nazis had done.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:00 AM

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/trafficking_persons_report_2006-04.html


http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:03 AM

As requested Guest Mohammed Smith:

Slavery in Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East

Main article: Arab slave trade
For Muslim views on slavery, see Religion and slavery.

The Arab world has traded in slaves like many other cultures of the region. It was one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by hundreds of years. The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade is thought to have originated with trans-Saharan slavery. The Moors, starting in the 8th century, raided coastal areas of the Mediterranean and Northern European (including British and even as far north as Scandinavian) coastal areas and would carry away sometimes whole villages to the Moorish slave markets on the Barbary Coast. Nautical traders from the United States became targets, and frequent victims, of the Barbary pirates, as soon as that nation began trading with Europe and refused to pay the required tribute to the North African states. The slave trade from East Africa to Arabia was dominated by Arab and African traders in the coastal cities of Zanzibar, Dar Es Salaam and Mombasa.

Male slaves were employed as servants, soldiers, or laborers by their owners, while female slaves, mostly from Africa, were long traded to Middle Eastern countries and kingdoms by Arab, Indian, or Oriental traders, some as female servants, others as sexual slaves. Arab, Indian, and Oriental traders were involved in the capture and transport of slaves northward across the Sahara desert and the Indian Ocean region into Arabia and the Middle East, Persia, and the Indian subcontinent. As many African slaves may have crossed the Sahara Desert, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean as crossed the Atlantic, perhaps more. Some sources estimate that between 11 and 17 million slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 to 1900, compared to 11.6 million across the Atlantic from 1500 to the late 1860s. The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade continued into the early 1900s.

Many Slavic males from the Balkans, and Turkic and Circassian males from the Caucasus Mountains and the eastern Black Sea regions were taken away from their homes and families and enlisted into special soldier classes of the army of the Ottoman Empire. These soldier classes were named Janissaries in the Balkans and Asia Minor, and Mamelukes in Egypt. The Janissaries eventually became a decisive factor in the intrigues of the Istanbul court of the Ottoman sultans, while the Mamelukes were mainly responsible for the expulsion of the Crusaders from Palestine and preventing the Mongols from entering Egypt.

The Arab trade in slaves continued into the 20th century. Written travelogues and other historical works are replete with references to slaves owned by wealthy traders, nobility and heads of state in the Arabian Peninsula well into the 1920s. T. E. Lawrence documented practices in which African Muslims performing the hajj would bring a son with them to Mecca and there sell him into slavery. Slave owning and slave-like working conditions have been documented up to and including the present, in countries of the Middle East. Though the subject is considered taboo in the affected regions, a leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country's religious curriculum has called for the outright re-legalization of slavery.

Ard,

Thanks very much for the correction you are right the Port "raided" was Baltimore, not Skibereen. Will get the other information as soon as I can get to the source reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:20 AM

Teribus You haven`t come up with any information on the raid on Skibereen by the Corsairs, also the ports in Ireland used by the north African Corsairs,still waiting.
You could have mentioned that those same north AfricanS were aided by Elizabeth the first of England, when she provided weapons to the Moroccans for use against the Catholic Portuguese,also Charles the first was happy to seek the help of the Moroccans against Spain in the 1620s.
England relied on Algeria and Morocco to provision Gibraltar and Minorca two of her colonial outposts during her war with Spain, at the same time, the Corsairs were raiding English shipping around her southern coast.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:45 AM

"Don't you dare criticise me for beating my wife! The man next door does it as well!" So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:50 AM

I take it that you did not read my previous post ard, which contained the following:

"Ard,
Thanks very much for the correction you are right the Port "raided" was Baltimore, not Skibereen. Will get the other information as soon as I can get to the source reference."

Sorry if 17 minutes is too much of a delay for you - but it will take longer than that.

Interesting times weren't they ard - nothing is ever black and white - only shades of grey.

With regard to the times of "Good Queen Bess" you've got to remember that England was the mouse that roared and successfully saw off the supreme "Super Power" of the day. When she came to the throne England was bankrupt and the navy built by Henry VIII was derelict and in ruins. Catholic Spain, hell bent on heretic England's destruction, was something to be reckoned with. When you are in a desperate situation and you are fighting for survival, you tend to make some very strange allies. Elizabeth, not having the money to rebuild a Navy to defend her realm, privatized the task and put it in the hands of extremely competent seamen. Spain suffered a death by a thousand cuts, inflicted on her by the English, the Dutch (first people to actually defeat Spain's Armies) and the Corsairs, who actually were used to attacking everybody and anything wherever they happened to come across it, so the fact that they were attacking English shipping should come as no great surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:54 AM

You are missing the point MGOH. I was aked to substantiate something I had said - I believe that I have.

"..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims" I will stand by that statement Dianavan because it can be easily proven to be true, it is extremely well documented and cannot be denied."

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:06 AM

Teribus it is not good enough to casually state that Irish ports were used by the Corsairs and also your statement that an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. He was a fisherman who was picked up and in fear of his life guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. The inhabitants of Baltimore were English "settlers", the records show that the names of those captured and killed were English.
Only two women of all of those captured were ransomed from Algiers namely Ellen Hawkins and Joan Braybrook.
When the Spanish Armada in 1580s lost many ships and men on the west coast of Ireland, they were very very quickly rounded up, so your Irish ports hideouts for the Corsairs is one I have never come across and has never been mentioned in any of the books I have on this subject.
For further information read Captives by Linda Colley.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:27 AM

ard mhacha - 01 Dec 06 - 09:06 AM

"Teribus it is not good enough to casually state that Irish ports were used by the Corsairs and also your statement that an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. He was a fisherman who was picked up and in fear of his life guided the Corsairs into Baltimore. The inhabitants of Baltimore were English "settlers", the records show that the names of those captured and killed were English."

Ard Macha, you really should start taking more water with whatever it is that you are pickling what remains of your brains with. A number of points:

1. Having reviewed the posts I have made to this thread I wrongly identified the port in South East Ireland raided by Corsairs as Skibereen.

2. You corrected my mistake and I acknowledged my error, stating that I would get back to you with regard to Corsirs activities off the South coast of Ireland. Please note Ard I have at this time only mentioned Baltimore once in acknowledging my mistake.

3. Now having only mentioned Baltimore once in the context explained above can you please cut and paste the part of any post of mine where I state that - "an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore."

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:43 AM

Teribus, In your research did you find any reference that any of the Irish slaves "squealed like canaries" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:52 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:01 AM

The reply from Teribus speaks volumes on the mans mental state, he hasn`t recovered from backing Bush and Blair in the Iraq disaster, his insults to varies people on this Thread shows him for what he is a long winded know all who was found out.
If I hadn`t corrected him on his ramblings about Skibereen, Ireland, and it`s ports of refuge for the corsairs, he would never have owned up. Do everyone a favor and disappear once again, back up Bush`s ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:23 AM

"Now having only mentioned Baltimore once in the context explained above can you please cut and paste the part of any post of mine where I state that - "an Irishman guided the Corsairs into Baltimore"

Can't you find that "statement" of mine Ard Macha????

Big difference between you and me Ard, is that if I have stated something in error I at least admit to it - damn sight more than can be said for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:40 AM

Don't usualy like to but in on a private argument but what 'insults to various people' are those, Ard? I haven't seen anything from Teribus worse than, to MGOH, 'do you not spout some complete and utter crap at times'. That seems to have been taken in good part and is insulting the words rather than the person. Your phrases 'long winded know all' and 'disappear once again, back up Bush`s ass' seem rather un-called for. I know there is a long history here but resorting to personal insults is far from your usual standard and normaly the ploy of someone with nothing better to say. I can see nowhere in this thread where Teribus resorts to this. Maybe you can see something I am missing. Can you point it out?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:50 AM

Anyone watch the Adventures of Captain Pugwash last night ?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:09 AM

It all seems pretty distasteful, all this scrapping about irrelevant matters in a thread discussing one of the biggest atrocities in the history of the human race.

It's a bit like a bunch of trippers having a punch-up in the Menem Gate about the rights and wrongs of the Norman Conquest.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:05 PM

You may be right ,but I am still laughing.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:09 PM

Teribus could be right in what he said. Only problem is he won't tell the rest of us where he read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Barnacle Bill the sailor
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:23 PM

I was taking a great interest in this until it got out of hand, I hope to put everyone right about how the Algerian Pirates found their way into the ports in the south of England.
They took any fishermen they found and with a little gentle persuasion the fishermen guided them in.
They didn`t really need to take the fishermen they were hot on their tail as they hurried to the safe haven of their ports, the Algerians came in on their wake and carried out their mayhem.
One of their most notorious pirates was a Dutch seaman turned Moslem who had a good working knowledge of the English coast,he was reputed to be held in awe even by the Algerians.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:58 PM

You mean "Slavery In The Arab World" by Murray Gordon, Teribus, don't you?
better sharpen up, there Teri...

I know a few books, too:
"Race and Slavery in the Middle East": An Historical Enquiry by Bernard Lewis
"Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora" by Ronald Segal
"White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary Captivity Narratives" by Paul Baepler.

None of these books I have read, as I'm quite sure you haven't neither.

I asked for figures.
I would like you to provide at least a few page references to maintain your revisionist opinion.

Sometime before Christmas, that is

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Barnacle Bill the Sailor
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 03:11 PM

Referring to Algerian pirates using Irish ports they did so at the behest of the English rulers in the Irish province of Munster Sir William Herbert along with his subordinates used the pirates to carry on illict trading, the wine and other goods were pirated from English and French ships.
Sir Edward Denny used his castle near Tralee to exercise the illict trading, Denny also had seats in Cornwall and south Wales, he did for the pirates in Munster what he had done previuosly in his Welsh and Cornish estates, Denny was later on created Earl of Norwich.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:45 PM

Well here we go again folks! It seems that any mention of country, race, colour or creed here on Mudcat will bring out plenty of people of similar counrty, race, creed or colour in defence, regardless of any proven facts. Why is it when any such is mentioned, people feel that they have to leap in, even regarding events that happened hundreds of years ago.

Unless you can build up a reasonable argument, such utterances will only be your own opinion, and should be treated as such. So here's my opinion. (why should I be any different?).

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:49 PM

You must admit Les it is very informative, keep them coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:02 PM

Well here we go again folks! It seems that any mention of country, race, colour or creed here on Mudcat will bring out plenty of people of similar country, race, creed or colour in defence, regardless of any proven facts. Why is it when any such is mentioned, people feel that they have to leap in, even regarding events that happened hundreds of years ago.

Unless you can build up a reasonable argument, such utterances will only be your own opinion, and should be treated as such. So here's my opinion. (Why should I be any different?)

Sure, some Irish were involved in slavery round about the third century. They were Celts. Anybody with any romantic notions of what Celts were like should read about their head-hunting, cattle raiding and slavery. But slavery was rife in those days, most societies in Western Europe and probably most other parts of the world were doing similar things.

The Arabs/Muslims have a well-documented history of slavery, both in Africa and the Mediterranean. That isn't to say that all Arab/Muslim people are slavers, or condone slavery. That would be stupid. One aspect of Muslim slavery not yet addressed you can read about here Ward the Pirate and this must be true, because there's a folk song about him! Now I feel no need to defend Captain Ward or apologise for his actions, even though he's English and shares the same surname as me.

We could all use the Mudcat to pass on information to each other to make us better informed. But just because someone said something here, or for that matter in most other places on the Internet, doesn't make it true. Now play nicely...

Les Ward

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Les from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:06 PM

Sorry about that GUEST, something weird happening and I was sending my reply and nothing was happening. I blame the orbiting mind-control satellites, or the secret Mudcat Illuminati, but that's just my opinion! I wonder if this will get through...

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:23 PM

"Some sources estimate that between 11 and 17 million slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 to 1900, compared to 11.6 million across the Atlantic from 1500 to the late 1860s. The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade continued into the early 1900s." Teribus Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:03 AM

So, let's see.
Average of 15 mill 'Arab' slaves in 1,250 years, compared to 11.6 mill Trans-Atlantikers in 360 odd years.
Going on those figures, Transatlantic Slave trade would only have needed to have existed for another 106.25 years, hitting the 15 mill mark in only 466 and a quarter years, leaving seven hundred and eighty-three (and three quarters)

11.6 million for 466, declared.
The Arabs were all out for 1250.

Read the scores on the boards, Teribus, old lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:34 PM

A period of history above my head, would have to search the net for information, so happy to just read your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:36 PM

But, anyway.
If the Arab countries, or the Scottish or Irish Parliaments decided that the shame of their part in the Slave Trade was so dispicable as to warrant almost an apology (Japanese and German governments, since the War have been obliged to remind us pn a regular basis that they've been bad boys in the past), well then, let them do so.

But this thread isn't about them.
It's about England's shame.

Let's try to focus, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:52 PM

Now let's see what my original contention was Mohammed Smith:

"..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims"

In terms of time that trade has been going on since the 700's, it continues to this day in Mauretania, Mali and in the Sudan.

Your averages Mohammed smack of someone who when confronted with the facts that they themselves demanded clutch at staws to refute what is the undeniable truth of the matter - ""..the greatest slavers in Africa were, and still are, the Arabs/Muslims"

Your:
"So, let's see.
Average of 15 mill 'Arab' slaves in 1,250 years, compared to 11.6 mill Trans-Atlantikers in 360 odd years.
Going on those figures, Transatlantic Slave trade would only have needed to have existed for another 106.25 years, hitting the 15 mill mark in only 466 and a quarter years, leaving seven hundred and eighty-three (and three quarters)"

That's sort of like declaring, "If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle". Truth of the matter would remain, "She hasn't, and she isn't"

Just read the statistics Mohammed, according to my arithmatic 15 million is a greater number than 11.6 million - no need to extrapolate or play with them, oh and by the way those figures for the Arab/Muslim trade were good up until sometime in the 1920's, but that trade has yet not been stopped.

Instead of Blair apologising he and other world leaders should be putting pressure on the Arab/Muslim states to outlaw and suppress slavery - Hard to do because their religion accepts slavery as being acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM

What about the shame of using something as horrible as slavery simply to troll on, of all places, a folk music internet site.

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:11 PM

The batting average was greater, Teribus. (by your figures)
That is what's known as 'The wider scheme of things'

And still no sign of any documented evidence from you.

You can't even get the author of a book right, Teribus, and if you were that au fait with the subject, you wouldn't have made that mistake.

You're bluffing, Teribus.

Documented figures, please!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:18 PM

I like statistics as a way to prove things. They can show that half the people in the world are below average intelligence, that everyone in the UK is on a decent living wage and that I have 2.4 children.

I particularly like Mr Smiths. From now on I can prove that the holocaust figures were wrong. Only 6 million Jews killed in the history of the Germanic peoples? Let me see, say 1500 years (round about when the Saxons were invading). That's only 4000 a year. That's only 80 a week. More than that are killed on the roads in a large town! Makes the gas chambers look like nothing doesn't it. Let's ignore them as well as the Arab slave trade then...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:21 PM

Liars, damned liars, & Statisticians....

Subject: RE: BS: Britain's shame of slave trade.
From: GUEST,Mohammed Smith
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:23 PM

Indeed, Dave.
And that there is a '9/11' every day in Africa.

Wider scheme of things