[Short Hand]

Western slave trading/ mass slaving in Africa started half a century ago, yes slaves have existed since almost the dawn of time. But that is not what we are talking about John rolleyes:

[Johnj]

WTF half a century ago was the 1940/1950. Your saying some mass slave trade was started 50 years ago by some western nations. annoy:

How about a link.

[Short Hand]

MILLENIUM******** MY BAD MY BAD ********

[Johnj]

That would be 500 years ago. 1505 and the new world was discovered in 1492. Sounds like slavery was a bad habit left over from our roots in Europe.

[Stammer]

Americans and Europeans took slaves. The Europeans stopped importing slaves from Africa before America did and allowed their slaves to stay and become citizens of their nations. Americans brough their slaves to of course America and also the Carribean and South America were many of them died becuase of brutal labor and poor treatment. For the most part Americans TOOK slaves and never really bought them from other Africans.

On a side note slavery is fucking disqusting, it's amazing that other people can claim the life of another human being for their personal service.

[Johnj]

Oh Spike the slave trade was well established by the time the United Stated was born. African tribes would raid each other and take prisoners, which would be sold into slavery in the markets of The Barbury Coast. The slavers would buy the slaves for $20 to $50 and pack them into their ships for the trip to the slave markets in America and Europe, or pack trains to the Middle East. The slaves would be sold for several hundred dollars ensuring huge profits, which is why the slavers didn't care if a lot of slaves died during the transit. Most western nations outlawed slavery during the 19th century.

[Ferich]

[quote="africanhistory.about.com":af5d6]

For two hundred years, 1440-1640, Portugal had a monopoly on the export of slaves from Africa. It is notable that they were also the last European country to abolish the institution - although, like France, it still continued to work former slaves as contract labourers, which they called libertos or engagés Ã* temps. It is estimated that during the 4 1/2 centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Portugal was responsible for transporting over 4.5 million Africans (roughly 40% of the total). During the eighteenth century however, when the slave trade accounted for the transport of a staggering 6 million Africans, Britain was the worst transgressor - responsible for almost 2.5 million. (A fact often forgotten by those who regularly cite Britain's prime role in the abolition of the slave trade.)

Africans had been traded as slaves for centuries -- reaching Europe via the Islamic-run, trans-Saharan, trade routes. Slaves obtained from the Muslim dominated North African coast however proved to be too well educated to be trusted and had a tendency to rebellion.

The transport of slaves from Africa to the Americas forms the middle passage of the triangular trade. Several distinct regions can be identified along the west African coast, these are distinguished by the particular European countries who visited the slave ports, the peoples who were enslaved, and the dominant African society(s) who provided the slaves.

Expanding European empires in the New World lacked one major resource -- a work force. In most cases the indigenous peoples had proved unreliable (most of them were dying from diseases brought over from Europe), and Europeans were unsuited to the climate and suffered under tropical diseases. Africans, on the other hand, were excellent workers: they often had experience of agriculture and keeping cattle, they were used to a tropical climate, resistant to tropical diseases, and they could be "worked very hard" on plantations or in mines.

Trans-Atlantic imports by region
1450-1900

Brazil 4,000,000 35.4
Spanish Empire 2,500,000 22.1
British West Indies 2,000,000 17.7
French West Indies 1,600,00 14.1
British North America and United States 500,000 4.4
Dutch West Indies 500,000 4.4
Danish West Indies 28,000 0.2
Europe (and Islands) 200,000 1.8
Total 11,328,000 100.0

[/quote:af5d6]

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by KTOG

Hah, i forgot all about that Zoner.

23 dead, apposed to thousands in Iraq? Whats the logic difference in this war and that battle? Nothing. Both were faught for tyranny and justifying genocide (not WMD as first argued). This is where i could say Iraq has oil, but I really hate that argument.

Think of all the good PR we would get with other nations if we pulled out of Iraq and became the country of goodwill? Start premoting peace and equal treatment of others. Help out in Africa, feed the hungry in India, bring oppurtunity and developement (with out bringing in Westernization). Also, remove bigotry and harrassment with in America. Then bring down corrupt corporate leaders sucking the world dry. What would people think of us then?

Are you worried now we will be unprepared from an suprise attack from a foreign country, while we are pussy footing around the country? Its not as if we won't have a military, we'll just be fighting defensive.

It's way too late for pulling out of Iraq if we pulled out now we'd look even more like dipshits than if we cut off African aid. It had to be one or the other and Iraq has become Bush's obsession. I vote move to Switzerland.

[KTOG]

I know mang. I didn't say I think we should pull out now. Also, that Switzerland idea isn't bad.

[rdeyes]

people will always hate america, its that simple

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by rdeyes

people will always hate america, its that simple

There are people out there who hate every country. When you're the super power of the world, you gotta expect that people aren't going to like your country, whether or not it deserves it.

People won't always hate america.

[c312]

We can't give money to Africa until we can make sure that the aid will get to the right hands; otherwise, it would be a waste of time and would make the situation for Africans worse. Once a plan can be implemented so that the corruption in Africa is limited, then I'm sure we will increase aid to Africa.

As for the war, terrorists have been linked and found in Iraq ( I don't care what anybody here says, its true) and that was a pressing issue in the years after 9/11 for the US to handle, along with the suspicion of WMDs in Iraq. Those things had high priorities in relation to the safety of American citizens, and that is why we have spent money on the war.

[Madmartagen]

terrorists are in iraq because of the massive power vacuum that occured after the invasion....they werent there before.

as for giving money to africa and debt relief, you cant just keep giving people money and wiping out debts to solve problems. if we just forgive debts and spend money, its just providing a temp solution to a problem and not fixing it. africa is what it is today because of its post imperial era. before the invaders came, they were more self reliant. now, they are dependent on our aid and our way of life to survive. it is a sad and depressing situation they are in, but they are and they are going to be fucked for quite some time. there are so many problems with AIDs, poverty, tribal wars, racism and corruption that there is not going to be a solid, effective solutino. bono and the boy bands can have all the concerts they want, its not going to solve anything. its a problem the west created and is in many ways unwilling and incappable of fixing any time soon.