Barbados gains independence.

[Energize]

Ah some northern states, but not the US... remind me how that worked out.

Failing to see the relevance.

You jest at India and it's caste system plus there are over 1 million in slavery still in India the largest slave population in the world...but yeah

You mean like how the UK created all this nice sounding anti-slavery legislation while still allowing slavery elsewhere in the empire like India?

1792 Denmark , 1832 UK...hundreds of years? ?????

Do you have fingers? Because you need to learn how to count them first.

1st grade maths isn't your strong suite here, as that was the country you cited to my claim of hundreds of years, maybe you meant Sweden in 1335 or perhaps Norway in 1275?

But speaking generally most of the nation weren't homosexual so the nation as it was then mostly enjoyed personal freedoms far in excess from that akin to slavery or the Chinese.

Oh well that's fine then...

Unless you have everyone born equal with the same freedoms it's just a mockery imo.

 

[dowie]

They've been independent since 1966 this is really just symbolic.

Yup, essentially a PR move.

The Queen, represented in reality by a Governor-General from the Island has been replaced by a President who is the exact same person that was Governor-General anyway.

I guess if they do need to sack a government in the future/remove a PM then it is an internal matter only and not technically something "the crown" has done.

Yeah this seems to be the next big threat to colonies is buying up cheap loans from China to invest heavily in infra projects, and then finding out they don't have the means to pay for it, and China then say they now own large parts of critical infra in your country.

A friend of a friend is involved in this, I remember meeting him and the topic came up in conversation; it's just staggering how different people's opinion's on it are. He was absolutely adamant that none of this is China's fault and even got a bit angry when it was suggested, instead, he comes out with explanations about how the recipient countries have squandered loans or screwed things up etc.. He literally sounded like the Chinese equivalent of some avid RT reader/viewer trying to explain Putin except he's not some random conspiracy nut reading stuff online he's one of the people directly involved in these deals.

The timeless classic variation of, "slaves benefitted from being taught English".

They kinda did to be fair. I mean the Africans who caught other Africans within the interior of that continent weren't too fussed about language differences, religions etc.. of the people they enslaved nor were the Europeans and Arabs and other Africans who purchased them along the coast.

I see a slavery museum is now planned to be constructed, which definitely couldn't have happened with the queen as head of state??

It does appear that Barbados are joining the OP in becoming full-on Guardian readers.

I dunno a museum dedicated to what some of their ancestors did to some of their other ancestors doesn't necessarily imply they all become Guardian readers...

 

[Joxeon]

Ah some northern states, but not the US... remind me how that worked out.

You jest at India and it's caste system plus there are over 1 million in slavery still in India the largest slave population in the world...but yeah

Care to point out that 2,000 years ago Indians stopped with slavery?

1792 Denmark , 1832 UK...hundreds of years? ?????

Do you have fingers? Because you need to learn how to count them first.

I'm sure that around 2000 years ago the britains were slaves to the Romans.

 

[Chojin]

In light of this news does the Queen get to keep Coconut Airways?

 

[Rimsy]

1st grade maths isn't your strong suite here, as that was the country you cited to my claim of hundreds of years, maybe you meant Sweden in 1335 or perhaps Norway.

Eh? But you quoted Denmark as being hundreds of years ahead of us... What have Sweden or Norway got to do with anything?

 

[Deleted member 236143]

Interesting take on to become independent is to renounce the monarchy and become a republic.
Even though James the 6th but the first, of Englandshire. introduced the United Kingdom would suggest true Scottish Independence would be to reverse pre 1603 and become a republic.
Although that all leads to another debate and thread.

 

[alchal]

Failing to see the relevance.



You mean like how the UK created all this nice sounding anti-slavery legislation while still allowing slavery elsewhere in the empire like India?



1st grade maths isn't your strong suite here, as that was the country you cited to my claim of hundreds of years, maybe you meant Sweden in 1335 or perhaps Norway in 1275?

What are you gibbering about?
You said Denmark stopped slavery hundreds of years before the UK...I proved that to be false.

You said India stopped slavery 2000 years ago, so evidence please as I can't find anything to back up your claim on that one either.

Perhaps stop moving goal posts eh.


You said, Sweden in 1335 or perhaps Norway in 1275?

Actually they abolished it or began the process from
Sweden 1847
Norway 1792

Where did you get your numbers from?

Quick Google, not hard is it

 

[Freakbro]

It does appear that Barbados are joining the OP in becoming full-on Guardian readers.

And the Guardian readers club is complete.

You think Energize reads the Guardian Typical low energy thinking of Daily Mail readers.... (see what I did there? )

He wouldn't touch that paper with your barge poles. He self identifies as a Right Wing Libertarian and his flavour of getting told what to think comes from reason.com

 

[diamount]

Well, I guess they can't scapegoat us anymore for their future troubles.

 

[Nasher]

Ok, now what?

This could be an economic disaster for them. Do they get funding, defence and aid from the UK which will now vanish?

 

[Energize]

You just couldn't make it up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59590576

Epstein and Maxwell pictured at Queen's residence at Balmoral

A picture of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell relaxing at what appears to be the Queen's Balmoral residence has been shown to a US court.

Eh? But you quoted Denmark as being hundreds of years ahead of us... What have Sweden or Norway got to do with anything?

I linked to a swathe of countries that made abolition efforts before us and he started talking about Denmark, in response to me saying hundreds of years...

Ok, now what?

This could be an economic disaster for them. Do they get funding, defence and aid from the UK which will now vanish?

They have been independent since 1966, some genius mod changed the thread title.

 

[ianh]

They have been independent since 1966, some genius mod changed the thread title.

And didn't have the decency to tell people about the change with their usual line in the OP in yellow either, which was a poor decision on which ever mod did it.

How can we trust the mod team if this one has decided to edit the OP's words without publicly stating why (or that they've even edited the title), how many other posts have they altered without people knowledge - who knows!

It may seem minor but it has huge "trust" implications when Mods change posts/titles and don't let people know what they've done and why.

 

[Roar87]

You just couldn't make it up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59590576

Is the implication that the Queen knew what Epstein was and let him come over anyway, or maybe she invited him personally and not Prince Andrew?

 

[Maccy]

You just couldn't make it up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59590576

Struggling to see how this is relevant to this thread? Or is this now your bashing the royals thread?

 

[thenewoc]

Oh well that's fine then...

Unless you have everyone born equal with the same freedoms it's just a mockery imo.

You had and have the freedoms that the democracy decided was right at the time. That's the problem with democracies, they don't represent minorities but still better than being a commie.

 

[Energize]

Is the implication that the Queen knew what Epstein was and let him come over anyway, or maybe she invited him personally and not Prince Andrew?

No, just ridiculous that Andrew was knowingly allowing paedos to visit the residence and the Queen failed to do due diligence.

Overall I think the Queen has derelicted her duty in failing to protect people's civil liberties allowing despicable legislation to pass under her reign.

And I'm not denying that Britain played a significant role in ending slavery as some seem to think, just saying that they were well behind a number of other countries. and it doesn't really make up for the massive role Britain played in expanding slavery and the numerous massacres carried out by the British military.

You had and have the freedoms that the democracy decided was right at the time. That's the problem with democracies, they don't represent minorities but still better than being a commie.

Democracies absolutely do not have to be tyranny of the majority, a constitution can protect the rights of all while still allowing for democratic rule.

 

[LabR@t]

Struggling to see how this is relevant to this thread? Or is this now your bashing the royals thread?

I think Jimmy fixed it for him to see the Queen

 

[Hotwired]

Overall I think the Queen has derelicted her duty in failing to protect people's civil liberties allowing despicable legislation to pass under her reign.

You what now.

The agreement is the hereditary monarch gets symbolic say and only acts on the advice of the government, elected by the people.

 

[AORUS]

and it doesn't really make up for the massive role Britain played in expanding slavery and the numerous massacres carried out by the British military. Democracies absolutely do not have to be tyranny of the majority, a constitution can protect the rights of all while still allowing for democratic rule.

So your bashing the royal again and now attacking the British military and this how modern democracies works wow! Slavery happen over 300/400 years ago and we still talk about it today! And it seems by your words only Britain played the part! In fact haft the world was in slavery trade, United States had 16 slave states before it was abolished in 1865 following the Civil War maybe bash them too!.

 

[Angilion]

[..] I linked to a swathe of countries that made abolition efforts before us and he started talking about Denmark, in response to me saying hundreds of years...[..]

Here's your quote. Direct and unaltered, of course.

[..] Guess Denmark abolishing it hundreds of years before we did, and Mexico and all the northern USA states abolishing it decades before we did doesn't count because we were bigger though? [..]

You explicitly stated that Denmark abolished slavery hundreds of years before "we" did. That was what you stated. That was what they replied to. Do you even read your own posts, let alone anyone else's posts? You certainly don't read your own sources, given that you claimed India abolished slavery 2000 years ago and even the wikipedia article you cited didn't claim that. Not least because the country of India didn't exist 2000 years ago and the Maurya emperor referred to didn't abolish slavery in his empire (the very article you link to says he urged people in his empire to treat their slaves well) and there's no indication of whether his orders had any effect or lasted for any amount of time. Also, slavery existed in India until the British empire stopped it.

Your sole aim is to denigrate the UK. You're making up anything to serve that end. Including ignoring your own posts.

Incidentally, the earliest known banning of the slave trade in England dates back to the 1070s. Not 1832. But hey, why let minor details like extant historical records or any other aspect of reality get in the way of scapegoating a country?

There have been various legal restrictions on slavery in some areas at some points in time. Some of them meant something locally. Some of them meant nothing as they weren't enforced. What's a simple matter of record is that by far the most important factor in the reduction in slavery on a large scale was the British empire's full on war against slavery in the 19th century. Many Britons died fighting slavery. But you (and, sadly, many others like you) eagerly **** on their graves in your rush to denigrate the UK. Usually extremist racism too - blame whitey! - but it's not clear whether or not you're fashionably racist in that way.