Why is the British parliment packed like Sardines ?

[kallipolis]

Much of the empire was established defensively, by taking it away from prior conquerers. Canada and some islands from the French, India from the French, Moguls, Dutch and Portuguese, etc. None of the countries were democracies and many of the native tribal leaders were cruel to an extent far more cruel than the British. Read Alan Moorhead's "The White Nile", history of the search for the source of the Nile by British explorers, and their efforts to end the slave traffic. In the balance, the people of the empire territories were and are better off for the empire.

Your observations are correct....for we Greeks understand, when quoting the Constitution of Athens (between 330 and 322 BC.), and recalling the much respected Pericles, some 70 pct of the population of Athens were "property" i.e. slaves...different times, and different understandings.

 

[T-Rexx]

Slaughtering members of other tribes was a relatively common occurence before the white man arrived in The Americas....with a reminder that tribal wars continue to occupy our news headlines in the Middle East, and Africa.....

How fortunate for the native peoples, then, that the British arrived to kill them off and thereby prevent them from harming each other.

Much of the empire was established defensively, by taking it away from prior conquerers.

The establishment of the British empire was never intended as a "defensive" maneuver. It was, from its very beginnings, an attempt to seize valuable land from people lacking the technology to defend it. It was always about the exploitation of people for the economic benefit of England.

Read Alan Moorhead's "The White Nile", history of the search for the source of the Nile by British explorers, and their efforts to end the slave traffic. In the balance, the people of the empire territories were and are better off for the empire.

I do not agree that genocide is good for any race of people.

Far from attempting to stop slave traffic, the British invented the enslavement of Africans for fun and profit. They were deeply involved in the expansion and promotion of slavery in the Americas for hundreds of years, and profited enormously from behavior which they knew to be heinous.

Native Americans are not better off because of their contact with the British. Neither are native Australians or native Africans. Your concept of the "White Man's Burden" is 19th Century thinking. It was debunked a hundred years ago.

 

[bankside]

Wait until you discover what the British did to their own people!

The world's first elites really felt that God commanded them to be wealthy and powerful. The human rights of those in any country, their own or abroad, were inconsequential to them.

 

[kallipolis]

Wait until you discover what the British did to their own people!

The world's first elites really felt that God commanded them to be wealthy and powerful. The human rights of those in any country, their own or abroad, were inconsequential to them.

I rather believe that the elites who commanded, and exploited were self serving rather, than listening to one of their gods.

 

[kallipolis]

How fortunate for the native peoples, then, that the British arrived to kill them off and thereby prevent them from harming each other.




The establishment of the British empire was never intended as a "defensive" maneuver. It was, from its very beginnings, an attempt to seize valuable land from people lacking the technology to defend it. It was always about the exploitation of people for the economic benefit of England.




I do not agree that genocide is good for any race of people.

Far from attempting to stop slave traffic, the British invented the enslavement of Africans for fun and profit. They were deeply involved in the expansion and promotion of slavery in the Americas for hundreds of years, and profited enormously from behavior which they knew to be heinous.

Native Americans are not better off because of their contact with the British. Neither are native Australians or native Africans. Your concept of the "White Man's Burden" is 19th Century thinking. It was debunked a hundred years ago.

I am certain that the enslavement of human beings pre existed the rise of the European colonial powers.....for we here in Greece made an efficient job of enslaving our fellow man.....and, of course we can thank the UK Parliament for abolishing the slave trade between Africa, and the Americas that so enriched African chieftains intent on abducting their fellow man, for sale to the Europeans.
Dare I mention William Wilberforce the Christian activist who worked so diligently in the UK parliament towards abolishing the slave trade.....

 

[T-Rexx]

I am certain that the enslavement of human beings pre existed the rise of the European colonial powers.....for we here in Greece made an efficient job of enslaving our fellow man.....

You cannot judge bronze and iron age people by modern understandings of morality.

The ancient Greeks and Romans did not have the conception of the sanctity of individual life that we appreciate today. A human life did not have the perceived value then, which it has today.

On the other hand, the British of the 17th through 19th centuries DID understand this concept. They ignored it because money was more valuable to them than millions of human lives.

and, of course we can thank the UK Parliament for abolishing the slave trade between Africa, and the Americas that so enriched African chieftains intent on abducting their fellow man, for sale to the Europeans. Dare I mention William Wilberforce the Christian activist who worked so diligently in the UK parliament towards abolishing the slave trade.....

Interesting that the British Parliament only came to the realization of the sanctity of life AFTER the slave trade became unprofitable for them.

 

[kallipolis]

You cannot judge bronze and iron age people by modern understandings of morality.

The ancient Greeks and Romans did not have the conception of the sanctity of individual life that we appreciate today. A human life did not have the perceived value then, which it has today.

On the other hand, the British of the 17th through 19th centuries DID understand this concept. They ignored it because money was more valuable to them than millions of human lives.




Interesting that the British Parliament only came to the realization of the sanctity of life AFTER the slave trade became unprofitable for them.

All the European colonial powers were involved in the slave trade.

The slave trade was profitable when the UK Parliament closed down the Africa/Americas slave trade by placing hundreds of war ships off the West African coast.....had the slave trade not been profitable it would have simply ceased to function as a business.

Ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and ancient Rome, and in more recent times Arab slave traders were heavily involved in slavery for their economies benefitted. The Spartacus revolt by slaves, against Rome was a spectacular reminder for Rome, that there were people who would resist being enslaved to profit the wealthy...

 

[T-Rexx]

The slave trade was profitable when the UK Parliament closed down the Africa/Americas slave trade by placing hundreds of war ships off the West African coast.....had the slave trade not been profitable it would have simply ceased to function as a business.

The British opposed the African slave trade (which they invented) after it became limited in profitability for them.

Which happened because the Americans took it over.

Then, they acquired religion and decided it needed to be stopped.

Ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and ancient Rome, and in more recent times Arab slave traders were heavily involved in slavery for their economies benefitted. The Spartacus revolt by slaves, against Rome was a spectacular reminder for Rome, that there were people who would resist being enslaved to profit the wealthy...

It goes without saying that slavery has never been a desirable institution for the slaves themselves. Of course they would try to rebel.

But, again, you cannot judge the ancient Greeks and Romans by modern standards of morality. They did not have the concept of sanctity for individual lives that we understand today. Murder was not even (necessarily) regarded as a crime in Rome! This was a very, very, very different world than the one in which we have lived for the last several hundred years.