single-handedly ended slavery around the world?
Or showing how Europeans also enslaved whites?
Or showing how black Africans still enslave other black Africans today?
Or showed how Europe invested one third of all of its wealth into building the infrastructure of Africa and then just voluntarily left?
LOL, just kidding.
No never. and I am NOT kidding.
shareSingle handedly? Surely, you can't be serious on that one.
White slavery? You mean like movies about Romans, such as Spartacus?
Africa today? Yeah, because Hollywood has promoted such naive, positive stories about Africa today, like Hotel Rwanda, Lord of War, Blood Diamond, etc.
And, the last one is the most laughable. Europe got filthy rich stealing African resources for centuries while enslaving and oppressing the people of the continent. You've got to be kidding me with the benevolent tripe of "investing one third of their wealth....and then just voluntarily left".
[deleted]
1. The British did not unilaterally end the slave trade and the poster said "slavery", not the slave trade. Plenty of African-Americans had a hand in ending slavery.
2. Indentured servitude was not the same as chattel slavery, but, yes, there are some good stories out there. There are also plenty of stories about people that haven't been told, either.
4. You give your prejudice away here. Nothing signifies complete trash of an opinion on the matter when I hear they were "civilizing" Africa. Read a book about African societies or the rape of African resources and learn something. Saying colonialism and imperialism benefit "inferior" societies is ignorant 19th century tripe.
[deleted]
1) Wrong, they did.
2) So? Indentured were treated worse. And it was still forced indentured slavery.
3) 'inferior' You're the one giving away your prejudices... The societies being colonized are inferior, and they do benefit from the experience. Just look at India and Hong Kong after British colonization.
[deleted]
Wrong. In 1700, Mughal India had the world's largest economy, controlling a quarter of the world economy. But after nearly two centuries of British imperialists looting and plundering India, they reduced India to an impoverished third-world country by the 1940s. It was a similar scenario in West Africa, where the Mali Empire was once a very wealthy civilization, which Europeans were envious of in the 16th century. It was because places like India and West Africa had a lot of wealth, that is why European colonialists invaded and plundered those regions, leaving them dirt poor after centuries of colonization.
According to historian Will Durant, "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history". By the estimate of Koenraad Elst the population of Indian subcontinent reduced by almost 80 million between 1000 and 1525.[109] In course of their conquests and rule in India, the number of Muslims in India increased through Immigration and Conversion. The ancient kingdoms in Afghanistan and Pakistan became Muslim majority areas, as did the Eastern Part of Bengal. This would ultimately lead to the Partition of India in 1947 after the end of British rule.
The only reason Europeans didn't depopulate the African continent like they did the Americas is because they didn't want to settle there..they just wanted the grab all the resources..except for South Africa where they did settle...and everyone knows what happened there.
I don't think everyone does (know what happened there). They know what Hollywood says happened there. They know of Mandela's struggle and they hail the strength and resilience of his wife (vociferous advocate of the totally acceptable practice of "necklacing").
shareYou should watch Beasts of No Nation ... an incredibly accurate reflection of child soldiers in Africa.
shareI've seen that. But one must remember that most of modern Africa's woes stem from the damage done by colonialism.
[deleted]
Same can be said with a lot of people here. Just because we live in a first world country doesn't guarantee you'll be intelligent. That goes for every race, religion, culture.
shareWorking out great for the Palestinians.
sharePalestine was the name given by Rome to a possession it held in the middle east. No nation named Palestine existed until it was created on paper by the UN in 1946. And, by the way, the land that the UN set aside for the "Palestinians," was mostly seized by Jordan. No one has ever asked them to give it back.
They recreated Israel at the same time, mostly following at least part of the territory that had once been part of Israel. Supporters of Palestine always seem to leave that out.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
White people are pretty much free in Hollywood to make any movie they want. Surely that must be true because movies about Marilyn Monroe and Elvis have been repeatedly made.
With several caveats, of course, must have a big named star and must get financing. Of course one can always go independent.
No one is stopping any such film being made.
http://www.auplod.com/u/dalpuo430da.png
(\ v /)
(='.'=)