Jews dont like africans (unless its to make them money of course)

[Im Broke]

and as clued up as you are on the historical pisstakings of your people marv, a big part of why you must be so angry, I'm sure your aware of the arab slave trade

them guys were slaving africans for sooo long before we copied them, do you feel the same?

probably spud your turk n morrocan mateys, see them as comrades in your crusade against the evil pinkies, but their grandads was trading yours for cloth and beads since the 8th century

is the secret ingredient for the success of arabic empires the sweat of the black people aswell?

Why do Caucasians always bring this up?

[time_bomb]

and as clued up as you are on the historical pisstakings of your people marv, a big part of why you must be so angry, I'm sure your aware of the arab slave trade

them guys were slaving africans for sooo long before we copied them, do you feel the same?

probably spud your turk n morrocan mateys, see them as comrades in your crusade against the evil pinkies, but their grandads was trading yours for cloth and beads since the 8th century

is the secret ingredient for the success of arabic empires the sweat of the black people aswell?

ancient egyptians, greeks and romans all had slavery long before arabs, plus the arab/ottoman slave trade included a considerable amount of white people, the slave trade wasnt about colour then, so ur point is invalid.

/

jews hate everyone tbh

[local]

it gets brought up cos its the most obvious example, europeans entered the already long existing market

timebomb, i was replyin to the idea that colonialism was the only reason england and europe "got rich", your talkin about somethin else, invalid

anyway, jews yeah

12 mins in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZPQehIIXNo&feature=player_embedded

[Da Luv Doc]

it gets brought up cos its the most obvious example, europeans entered the already long existing market

timebomb, i was replyin to the idea that colonialism was the only reason england and europe "got rich", your talkin about somethin else, invalid

anyway, jews yeah

12 mins in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZPQehIIXNo&feature=player_embedded

Did you watch the rest of this vid?

[local]

listened to it a few weeks ago

12 mins in it gets going...

[Esquilax]

heres another 5 pager thread consisting of venoms distaste for jews ,marlo with nonsensical essays of black nationalism and justin with his illiterate garbage

Not reading past this post

Pos'n'leave

[Esquilax]

That being said L.O.L at 'portrade'

[MARVELL]

local, thats why i say ur so ignorant. a few elite benefited from the slave trade? are u fucking nuts?

the Leicester ur talking about, liverpool bristol, all the ports that were key to all the industrial towns that sprung up

all the result of the slave trade. the influx of goods manufactured from raw materials sourced by slaves...free labour led to not only a few elite pple getting rich mate but it

created a middle class, the slave trade initiated insurance, offshore banking, allowed super conglomerates like UNilever, dutch west african company, Lloyds, barcyalys, barings bank, these companies in turn gave millions in tax to the govt coffers and sponsored education, and the investment in industry..from the scientific inventions that brunel came up with to many others that the top universities came up with was all a result of private funding from rich individuals who got rich off either slavery or one of its affiliated industries created as a direct result of it.

the slave trade lifted Europe out of the dark ages. England was the biggest manufacturer of cotton and sugar for hundreds of yrs...all down to free labour.

the working class benefited from it as they had jobs created as a result.

i always talk about the arab slave trade.... they carried it out for longer than the europeans, but cos they're just generally stupid people always infighting they were never able to create the industries the europeans created to benefit themselves, but many did. and like jewish people they like to hide this fact of history and cosy up to Africans when it suits them. but their slave trade was not as profitable or devastating as the trans atlantic one.

[Elementalism]

local, thats why i say ur so ignorant. a few elite benefited from the slave trade? are u fucking nuts?

the Leicester ur talking about, liverpool bristol, all the ports that were key to all the industrial towns that sprung up

all the result of the slave trade. the influx of goods manufactured from raw materials sourced by slaves...free labour led to not only a few elite pple getting rich mate but it

created a middle class, the slave trade initiated insurance, offshore banking, allowed super conglomerates like UNilever, dutch west african company, Lloyds, barcyalys, barings bank, these companies in turn gave millions in tax to the govt coffers and sponsored education, and the investment in industry..from the scientific inventions that brunel came up with to many others that the top universities came up with was all a result of private funding from rich individuals who got rich off either slavery or one of its affiliated industries created as a direct result of it.

the slave trade lifted Europe out of the dark ages. England was the biggest manufacturer of cotton and sugar for hundreds of yrs...all down to free labour.

the working class benefited from it as they had jobs created as a result.

i always talk about the arab slave trade.... they carried it out for longer than the europeans, but cos they're just generally stupid people always infighting they were never able to create the industries the europeans created to benefit themselves, but many did. and like jewish people they like to hide this fact of history and cosy up to Africans when it suits them. but their slave trade was not as profitable or devastating as the trans atlantic one.

I think you and local are right. Your summary of history is bang on, slavery pulled Europe up out of feudalism.

Local is right about us having to bear responsibility for the wealth that is being generated during these post colonial/neo imperial times. We can't just blame Jews, or just blame white people. Certain Africans got fat off the slave trade, some got mugged off, some still retain land and political power. Same with whites.

However Israel has been getting heavily involved in the African black market. A lot of gold and diamonds ends up being sold in Israel like it hasn't got any blood on it. And nobody likes how powerful Israel is politically, and militarily. They're like a little bully with a massive big brother.

[MARVELL]

u can blame the people who profited the most, who intiiated it, and who got away literally scot free for it.

everytime trans atlantic slavery gets mentioned u have people rushing in to either lay blame on arabs, or defend jewish pple or to blame africans as well.

thats the sort of westernised brainwashing thats been done.

ask them if they know names of any african kings or queens who fought against slavery of their people and they will not have an answer.

[Da Luv Doc]

listened to it a few weeks ago

12 mins in it gets going...

I don't think you did. He basically starts saying what Venom is saying.

[Guest petercrotch]

local, thats why i say ur so ignorant. a few elite benefited from the slave trade? are u fucking nuts?

the Leicester ur talking about, liverpool bristol, all the ports that were key to all the industrial towns that sprung up

all the result of the slave trade. the influx of goods manufactured from raw materials sourced by slaves...free labour led to not only a few elite pple getting rich mate but it

created a middle class, the slave trade initiated insurance, offshore banking, allowed super conglomerates like UNilever, dutch west african company, Lloyds, barcyalys, barings bank, these companies in turn gave millions in tax to the govt coffers and sponsored education, and the investment in industry..from the scientific inventions that brunel came up with to many others that the top universities came up with was all a result of private funding from rich individuals who got rich off either slavery or one of its affiliated industries created as a direct result of it.

the slave trade lifted Europe out of the dark ages. England was the biggest manufacturer of cotton and sugar for hundreds of yrs...all down to free labour.

the working class benefited from it as they had jobs created as a result.

i always talk about the arab slave trade.... they carried it out for longer than the europeans, but cos they're just generally stupid people always infighting they were never able to create the industries the europeans created to benefit themselves, but many did. and like jewish people they like to hide this fact of history and cosy up to Africans when it suits them. but their slave trade was not as profitable or devastating as the trans atlantic one.

Tell him . This is real talk

[local]

i'm ignorant yet you seem to think Leicester is a port

the trans atl slave trade obviously helped fuel the fire of the industrial revolution in britain, but it was never "all the result"

slave trade was a product of industry, not the other way round

dark ages ended 15th century, britain weren't colonising until 17th

plantations and slave trade accounted for like 5% of Britain's GDP

its a nice story i can see why you like it but its wrong, do some research

[Supermalt]

free labour accounting for 5% GDP?

after it was abolished gdp fell by more than 10%

[local]

free labour accounting for 5% GDP?

after it was abolished gdp fell by more than 10%

no it didn't

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_1833UKmn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

[Elementalism]

[lanceW]

For a start we need to stop using the word Jew like its a race when its clearly just a person who practices judaism.

The ones that are hating on us are the ashkenazi jews who got rushed out of Europe during the world war and now they think they're bawss in the middle east.

I leave this here anyway...

[Supermalt]

Colonial purchases of British goods were a major stimulus to the economy. Around 1770, 96.3% of British exports of nails and 70.5% of the export of wrought iron went to colonial and African markets. Around the same time, British exports of iron manufactures took 15-19% of domestic iron production.

Textile exports accounted for between a third and a half of total production, with colonial and African markets again taking a huge share. In the periods 1784-1786 and 1805-1807, the growth of exports accounted for no less than 87% of the growth of British output.

During the French Wars (1793-1802, 1804-1815) British exporters often found that, excluded from Europe, they had to rely on colonial and American markets. The merchant and finance houses that facilitated the import of sugar and cotton also helped to extend badly-needed credit to the textile and metal manufacturers.

Around 1770, total investments in the domestic British economy stood at £4 million, (or about £500 million in today's money). This investment included the building of roads and canals, of wharves and harbours, of all new equipment needed by farmers and manufacturers, and of all the new ships sold to merchants in a period of one year.

Around the same time, slave-based planting and commercial profits came to £3.8 million (or about £450 million in contemporary terms). Of course profits were not all reinvested, but they did furnish a convenient pool of resources available for this purpose. British West Indian planting profits can be estimated at £2.5 million in 1770, while trading profits on the West India trade were around £1.3 million, at a time when annual slave trading profits were at least £1 million.

Even if not all reinvested the slave-generated profits were large enough to have covered a quarter to a third of Britain's overall investment needs.

Notwithstanding the interruptions of war, the plantations made a very substantial contribution for many decades, indeed for the greater part of the century after 1720. Between 1761 and 1808, British traders hauled across the Atlantic 1,428,000 African captives and pocketed £60 million - perhaps £8 billion in today's money - from slave sales.

A study of the activities of 23 London merchants who were heavily involved in the slave trade found they 'played their part in building roads and bridges ... They invested in [other] maritime undertakings, especially whaling; the making of cloth, mainly wool; mining, especially salt, coal, and lime; and the production of building materials, such as lumber, rope, iron and glass.'

[local]

despite the fact that articles from the BBC and written by a guy described as "a British socialist historian, a former editor of New Left Review (1981-99), an author of essays on Marx and socialism" and uses vague random points like what percentage of britishnail exports are going to africa around a certain time to make his politically correct point.......he doesn't show any evidence supporting marvell's claim

a third/ quarter of investment, although again, the stats are questionable (per annum?), shows surely Britain could manage on its own

no suprise that rich slave merchants invested in other markets and "played thier part" in building roads and bridges (duno where), probably to transport some slaves n salt

your average english bloke back in the colonial days benifited from colonialism as much as a footlocker employee benifits from Nike's chinese labour extortion tbh

[MARVELL]

Consumers and slaves

Slave-owning planters, and merchants who dealt in slaves and slave produce, were among the richest people in 18th-century Britain. Profits from these activities helped to endow All Souls College, Oxford, with a splendid library, to build a score of banks, including Barclays, and to finance the experiments of James Watt, inventor of the first really efficient steam engine.

Liverpool merchant bankers, heavily involved in the slave-based trades, extended vital credit to the early cotton manufacturers of its Lancashire hinterland. West Indian planters built stately homes - some, ridiculously extravagant dwellings such as William Beckford's Fonthill - and furthered the modernisation of British agriculture by 'improving' their estates. Others invested in canals. And, of course, many spent their ill-gotten gains on gambling, prize fights and riotous living.

The fact that farmers had to pay rent, and that labourers needed a job if they were to feed their families, was the germ of a new economic system - what we now call capitalism.

Many different types of people now needed money in their pocket or purse.  The better-off bought fine wines or oriental silks. But even the working class day labourer could buy tobacco and sugar. Merchants met this new demand by setting up slave plantations in Virginia and the Caribbean. While there was a growing taste for exotic stimulants and luxuries.

In his famous 1944 book 'Capitalism and Slavery', the Trinidadian scholar Eric Williams argued that profits from slavery 'fertilised' many branches of the metropolitan economy and set the scene for England's industrial revolution'.

The plantation colonies supplied the mother country with a growing stream of popular luxuries - dyestuffs, sugar, tobacco, then later coffee and chocolate as well - and cotton, a crucial industrial input.

The availability of such treats drew consumers into greater participation in market exchanges and greater reliance on wages, salaries and fees. Baiting the hook of wage dependence, new consumer goods helped to motivate what some historians call the 'industrious revolution', the longer hours and tight labour control associated with industrialism.

and all that is taken from an already biased BBC history website, which although states the facts, it also tries to paint a rosy picture that the consumers were "unaware" of the terrible cost of how this new found wealth came about. fucking bollocks.

also, india allowed england to be the leading Tea exporter, making further millions (or billions in todays money) from free indian labour.

my chinky people knew that europeans were deviants and banned foreigners from trading in china, but one uber daemon brit merchant disguised himself as a chinese trader and teefed tea seedlings to take and plant in india and introduced tea to inda and began the tea plantations.

go and read How Europe underdeveloped Africa.

yes, at the top of this trade and finance industry sat jewish people who knew fully well what was going on. but dont sit there trying to excuse the rest of the english people who enjoyed the fruits of this free labour.

thats why England or infact the whole UK cos the welsh and scots were in on it too....now belongs to ALL of us who's people built this place for free. that includes phonecharger who just arrived 2 yrs ago on Naija airways.http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/industrialisation_article_01.shtml

[local]

So you think the fact that a library was payed for to go in All Souls College, a constituent college of the uni of Oxford, helped the everyday man in the 1700s.

You think that the creation of banks, a way for these cunts to make more money off us, also helped the everyday man.

And you've even increased the font size on the fact the working class were allowed enough money for tobacco n sugar? What a bunch of spoilt cunts.

Your in denial

The steam engine is a decent point, although arguably he'd have found other investors

[MARVELL]

yes it allowed the everyday man get credit and set up his small business.

we can cuss banks and bankers all we like, but they have been vital in creating more than half of the small medium sized businesses of yesterday that are the large conglomerates of today or will be of tomorrow

and...in those days the 'fucking everyone off' mentality wasnt as bad as it is today in this information age. so banks were actually doing what banks should do mostly back then.

YOU are the one in denial. there is no credible person who can honestly claim that hundreds of yrs of slavery, and free labour were not vital to the industries that made britain great. only a fool will look at the ACTUAL trading of slaves and try and quantify that. the denial is soley yours mate. and its not surprising cos like most british people such as yourself you are totally unaware of the 'dark sides' of your history. and prefer to just remain cherry picking bufoons too lazy to compete with them "foreigners".

How did money from slavery help develop Greater Manchester?

The port cities of Liverpool, London and Bristol are most often linked with the transatlantic slave trade. However, direct and indirect profits from slavery fuelled the Industrial Revolution in Greater Manchester.

The wealth created primarily by cotton led to a boom in related industries including banking and industrial engineering to service the textile mills. The rapid growth of the textile industries in the north west of England changed the landscape as mills and warehouses were built across the region. It was said that:

‘There was not a village within 30 miles of Manchester on the Cheshire and Derbyshire side in which the manufacture of cotton was not carried on’.

Cotton was the most important commodity in the north west of England, particularly in developing the towns of Bolton, Oldham, Manchester and Rochdale. Cotton was supplied through the system of American slavery until 1865.

The wealth generated through the transatlantic slave trade is reflected in the grand buildings of Manchester, especially in and around Mosley Street, Piccadilly and Portland Street as well as the many vast warehouses.

New transport links were also developed to allow the easy movement of raw cotton and processed goods within the region and to the port of Liverpool. The Bridgewater and Rochdale Canals and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway were most significant.

Some of the wealth from the region’s links to slavery has benefited the public as philanthropists, such as the Greg and the Lees families, donated money and artworks to local cultural institutions such as Manchester Art Gallery, Gallery Oldham and the Whitworth Art Gallery.

[local]

i havn't been denying its importance to industry, jus that it weren't the only reason england "got rich"

trade had been developing for centuries

lol @ more government sources btw

if you think i'm unaware of the darksides school me gee, post links

[imhim]

[Supermalt]

despite the fact that articles from the BBC and written by a guy described as "a British socialist historian, a former editor of New Left Review (1981-99), an author of essays on Marx and socialism" and uses vague random points like what percentage of britishnail exports are going to africa around a certain time to make his politically correct point.......he doesn't show any evidence supporting marvell's claim

a third/ quarter of investment, although again, the stats are questionable (per annum?), shows surely Britain could manage on its own

no suprise that rich slave merchants invested in other markets and "played thier part" in building roads and bridges (duno where), probably to transport some slaves n salt

your average english bloke back in the colonial days benifited from colonialism as much as a footlocker employee benifits from Nike's chinese labour extortion tbh

its better than your wikipedia link and second rate website you posted filled with vague points, sources and stats mate.

so you saying a British conservative historian would give a better account then?

china is still a cost, slavery costs you next to nothing. yes those footlocker employees do benefit, as the company can expand and employ more of them and the consumer from cheaper trainers

your core main point of 'britain would have been as wealthy anyway' is not logical at all

hmm and you probably were right about gdp..

Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century" by some historians, around 10,000,000 square miles (26,000,000 km²) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire

britain just expanded its hustle beyond slaves and took entire nations

but of course according to you 'britain would have been rich anyways'