Its my mistake that Africans didn't neccsarily need guns from Europeans? If thats the case please point out how im wrong.
I was mainly concerned with West Africans. If im refering to Africans that were part of an Islamic Empire you should know specifically what Africans im talking about. Im obvoulsy not refering to the Zulus or Africans from Central Africa who were pagan as far as I can remember.
See above post.
Ok fair enough.
How do you know they lacked the infrastructure to do that?
Im not refering to the Zulus.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
Last edited by Deadline on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 12:15 PM
There was only 2 skirmishes where it was brutal "for the British" and none of those had anything to do with Cunning, Speed etc. 1 was to do with the shit way the British had set up their defences and being hugely outnumbered (Only 80 died though) and the other was sheer weight of numbers to an even larger degree. (Not to mention that the Zulu actually had muskets and other rifles at Isandlwana).
I would ask you to not get upset with North Americans, although I can only speak for U.S. education, but they don't teach anyone about those slave trades here period, at all (I'll be entering graduate school next semester to receive my teaching license. Public schools are mostly like "get these kids the hell out of here"; private schools are more like "let's teach them how to think", but not a varied, diversified education by any stretch unless you choose to do so as an individual teacher).
I learned about them after getting into college but that was after doing research that had nothing directly with my classes.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
[QUOTE=12468036]Originally posted by -Pr- not what i said, and i honestly can't believe you misquoted me like that.
first of all, i said drafted/recruited, meaning both were done. both were. irish men were still voluntarily joining the british army up until, well, the present day. one of my relatives is actually part of the army.
the only irish people that had influence and power under british rule were loyalists to the queen, or wealthy landowners/businessmen (like you said) who again, worked with the british. the average irish person had neither the opportunity nor wealth required to be a slave owner. any irish person that opposed british rule (and there were a few of them) were executed pretty quickly.
did the irish make each other slaves before british rule? yes. that's not what i'm talking about here. i'm talking strictly about african slaves.
yes, irish people owned slaves. but was it an irish idea, and irish way of life, and collectively, independently an irish decision? no.
ireland was f*cked up in the past. its f*cked up now. the FACT is, though, what the british did in ireland was abhorrent, whether you want to pretend it was or not. so yes, they deserve some of the blame. [/QUOTE
You dirty bastard. That sig is AweSome dude.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Everything that "lil bitchness" says is true, the sahara or arab slave trade was the longest, 2-3 times of the slavery in the americas and it was primarily for personal use of people as property than business use of property. They made euniches of the men (chop off penis) and use them as soldiers to fight for their interests, the women as concubines( secondary wives, lovers, or sex slaves). These people came from across the gruelig trip by way of the sahara desert, the vast majority of them didn't surive the trip.
It was so rough that 4 out of 5 people died. These people came from north africa, also eastern africa in the north east like eqypt, sudan, and further down eastward the zani or bantu. They were very cruel, the cruest. The people must have been like nothing to them. They did this everywhere, in europe as well as africa took millions of people but in africa, a lot more due to the fact that tribelism did exist largely in africa. The people lived in nomes(the greeks later adopted this idea and call it them in greece, city-states)didn't bother each other and one person didn't control a hold country, there were many kings.
Also, at this time European controlled the world as they do now. All the recent world superpowers were from europe at that time and the world powers of africa had cease being a factor, you just had very wealthy people living by community when arabs as well as europeans were fighting over who was to ruled the world. They used africa's welcoming attitude and hostility to guests to see there many riches, wealth, internal struggles and use this as an opportunity to further divide them. This is what is happening now, they all play "kind" to take advantage of you as the european did or become your susposed friend as if they could never do cruel things to you and do the worse as the arab have done. Both sides play on the disadvantages of africans today which are all deeply due to them, for whatever problems african have had they could have long move past, I mean they were never that bad as in europe where they just raided like it was a job, some nations more than others or in arabia where all they did was war since ancient times.
They have purposely kept struggles in africa so it would be easier today to steal their resources, with africans to die from crime and violence, mal-nutrition other diseases and even still be sold as slaves by other african or africans brainwashed to thinking they are arabs. A crime of the greastest kind, against man and greater, God who made humans. Two groups of the human family in greed and hate, slowly, mischieveously, seemly without blame trying to kill off the other group by any means through genicide and assimulation to get their rich land, talents but make it look like its not their fault or wish, the people are just messed up. They are but with other peoples problems, not their own. With their own problems, they would do just fine.