Topic: Axel Rudakubana
Anonymous A started this discussion 4 months ago #119,954
is...
boof joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 11 minutes later[^] [v] #1,313,755
hmmm you got some nerve, mister
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 7 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,757
He's a good British boy, and everyone who says otherwise is a right wing thug.
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,760
@previous (C)
why are you saying he's good? you are unique in that perspective, and in light of his actions (and I'm not sure of the name because there's been spreading of just plain wrong information before), a really bad assessment.
why are you saying he's good? you are unique in that perspective, and in light of his actions (and I'm not sure of the name because there's been spreading of just plain wrong information before), a really bad assessment.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 12 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,764
@previous (boof)
Methinks Anon C may be employing a bit of sarcasm.
> not sure of the name
It's correct. Even though he's still 17 (will be 18 in a week) the judge at his initial hearing (Andrew Menary) allowed it to be released as, "Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum".
Methinks Anon C may be employing a bit of sarcasm.
> not sure of the name
It's correct. Even though he's still 17 (will be 18 in a week) the judge at his initial hearing (Andrew Menary) allowed it to be released as, "Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum".
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,765
was he named after Axel Foley, the Beverly Hills cop?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,768
@previous (boof)
> was he named after Axel Foley, the Beverly Hills cop?
I think you might be onto something there. I was thinking maybe Axl Rose, but you'll have to ask his parents to be sure.
> was he named after Axel Foley, the Beverly Hills cop?
I think you might be onto something there. I was thinking maybe Axl Rose, but you'll have to ask his parents to be sure.
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,800
did he play the hit synthesizer hit, Alex F, while carrying out his horrors?
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,822
@1,313,760 (boof)
Those idiot white people thought he was a foreign savage, when actually he is quintessentially British, he literally shits the Queen
Those idiot white people thought he was a foreign savage, when actually he is quintessentially British, he literally shits the Queen
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,834
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 13 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,836
@1,313,822 (C)
He's Muslim, the issue had nothing to do with here he was born, and everything to do with the culture.
He's Muslim, the issue had nothing to do with here he was born, and everything to do with the culture.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 23 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,843
@previous (D)
> He's Muslim, the issue had nothing to do with here he was born, and everything to do with the culture.
Much more likely to be Christian if he's Rwandan, but it's possible.
@1,313,800 (boof)
> did he play the hit synthesizer hit, Alex F, while carrying out his horrors?
I think he might have been humming sweet child of mine.
> He's Muslim, the issue had nothing to do with here he was born, and everything to do with the culture.
Much more likely to be Christian if he's Rwandan, but it's possible.
@1,313,800 (boof)
> did he play the hit synthesizer hit, Alex F, while carrying out his horrors?
I think he might have been humming sweet child of mine.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,866
nigger
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 5 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,908
Anonymous E replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,925
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 6 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,947
@1,313,836 (D)
Didn't you hear PC Plod? Speculation that he was foreign was so unhelpful, they literally have said that he was born in the UK. And as we all know, if you're dropped out on British soil and/or have a scrap of paper from the Government saying "British", that makes you British, end of.
Didn't you hear PC Plod? Speculation that he was foreign was so unhelpful, they literally have said that he was born in the UK. And as we all know, if you're dropped out on British soil and/or have a scrap of paper from the Government saying "British", that makes you British, end of.
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,955
@previous (C)
well yes. there has to be a legal definition and that is how it works in any country. Citizenship is defined according to rules that are written out.
well yes. there has to be a legal definition and that is how it works in any country. Citizenship is defined according to rules that are written out.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,965
@previous (boof)
You're confusing nationality/citizenship with culture.
People can share a common citizenship and have radically different cultures.
The protestors have an issue with a particular culture, this isn't about legal citizenship.
The media is making up a strawman to make the protestors look stupid, but it's not the actual motivation.
You're confusing nationality/citizenship with culture.
People can share a common citizenship and have radically different cultures.
The protestors have an issue with a particular culture, this isn't about legal citizenship.
The media is making up a strawman to make the protestors look stupid, but it's not the actual motivation.
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,967
@previous (D)
well you should be more specific that is what you mean. the only definition that has legal consequences is the definition that is defined in the written law of the particular land. you don't have the rights of a citizen without that legal designation. and depending on if you have that legal designation, then by law you are treated in a particular way by authorities that can affect your freedom and your ability to reside.
well you should be more specific that is what you mean. the only definition that has legal consequences is the definition that is defined in the written law of the particular land. you don't have the rights of a citizen without that legal designation. and depending on if you have that legal designation, then by law you are treated in a particular way by authorities that can affect your freedom and your ability to reside.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,969
@previous (boof)
> well you should be more specific that is what you mean.
People have specifically said what they mean, they are ignored, and the other side keeps insisting this is about race or citizenship.
I can't control how other people (mis)interpret something.
> the only definition that has legal consequences is the definition that is defined in the written law of the particular land.
The country can chose to limit new migration for people from these cultures, that is legally possible.
Politicians refuse to entertain the idea, and there are severe consequences when regular citizens advocate for it.
> you don't have the rights of a citizen without that legal designation. and depending on if you have that legal designation, then by law you are treated in a particular way by authorities that can affect your freedom and your ability to reside.
Yes, and that irrelevant to what is actually being advocated for.
> well you should be more specific that is what you mean.
People have specifically said what they mean, they are ignored, and the other side keeps insisting this is about race or citizenship.
I can't control how other people (mis)interpret something.
> the only definition that has legal consequences is the definition that is defined in the written law of the particular land.
The country can chose to limit new migration for people from these cultures, that is legally possible.
Politicians refuse to entertain the idea, and there are severe consequences when regular citizens advocate for it.
> you don't have the rights of a citizen without that legal designation. and depending on if you have that legal designation, then by law you are treated in a particular way by authorities that can affect your freedom and your ability to reside.
Yes, and that irrelevant to what is actually being advocated for.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,971
@1,313,955 (boof)
Absolutely! The scrap of paper that says "British" is completely correct. There's no such thing as "British" except for a legal definition of statehood.
Absolutely! The scrap of paper that says "British" is completely correct. There's no such thing as "British" except for a legal definition of statehood.
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,995
@previous (C)
well people are free to have their own connotative meanings as well as a denotative one. people do that all the time, like when people are asked, "what does it mean to you to be..." some specified category of being. you'll naturally have disagreement that way, that's fine, people have their own ideas in their heads don't they
well people are free to have their own connotative meanings as well as a denotative one. people do that all the time, like when people are asked, "what does it mean to you to be..." some specified category of being. you'll naturally have disagreement that way, that's fine, people have their own ideas in their heads don't they
boof double-posted this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,997
@1,313,969 (D)
"advocated for" --OK I'm not clear what you mean there -- isn't the whole thing about who gets to legally be in the land in the first place? if that is what you mean, then articulate that.
"advocated for" --OK I'm not clear what you mean there -- isn't the whole thing about who gets to legally be in the land in the first place? if that is what you mean, then articulate that.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,999
@1,313,995 (boof)
I'm not sure what that means. All I know is that everyone for some reason thinks that Axel Rudakubana is anything other than 100% British, even though someone wrote down "British" on a bit of paper.
I'm not sure what that means. All I know is that everyone for some reason thinks that Axel Rudakubana is anything other than 100% British, even though someone wrote down "British" on a bit of paper.
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,003
@previous (C)
well what's fruitful about arguing one way or the other? he's a legal British citizen of very recent Rwandan decent. and... what do you want to add to that that we aren't talking enough about?
well what's fruitful about arguing one way or the other? he's a legal British citizen of very recent Rwandan decent. and... what do you want to add to that that we aren't talking enough about?
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,021
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,029
Anonymous E replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,031
@1,314,021 (C)
oy vey you stinky goyim, a mouse is a racehorse because he lives in a stable, and this anti-semitism doesnt belong in polite society
oy vey you stinky goyim, a mouse is a racehorse because he lives in a stable, and this anti-semitism doesnt belong in polite society
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,037
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,043
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,046
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,050
@1,313,997 (boof)
Why would you think it's anything else?
These groups have been saying that bringing in Muslims has created problems and that they aren't integrating.
This is in spite of the fact that articulating that has been increasingly outlawed as "racist hate speech" by people that can't tell the difference between culture and race.
Why would you think it's anything else?
These groups have been saying that bringing in Muslims has created problems and that they aren't integrating.
This is in spite of the fact that articulating that has been increasingly outlawed as "racist hate speech" by people that can't tell the difference between culture and race.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,057
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,061
@previous (C)
No it doesn't. You can't spend hundreds of years shiping in slaves and breeding with them to turn around and act like blood means so much
No it doesn't. You can't spend hundreds of years shiping in slaves and breeding with them to turn around and act like blood means so much
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,064
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Look at this person, who doesn't know that 1) if a slave stepped foot on English soil they were free and 2) the British abolished slavery and used the navy to force everyone else to do it too.
Look at this person, who doesn't know that 1) if a slave stepped foot on English soil they were free and 2) the British abolished slavery and used the navy to force everyone else to do it too.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,066
@previous (C)
The British forcefully colonized people for hundreds of years and used slavery
What you said doesn't erase that
The British forcefully colonized people for hundreds of years and used slavery
What you said doesn't erase that
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,090
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> The British forcefully colonized people for hundreds of years and used slavery
So did every other nation, civilization and empire in history that rose to power. The British were the first to try to end it. What changed absolutely everything was the industrial revolution and the invention of modernity, which made slavery obsolete... thanks to the British.
By the way, slavery is still perpetrated today in northern Africa. Why do you choose to ignore it and instead dwell endlessly on something that happened 250 years ago and that nobody alive today participated in or can be blamed for in any way?
> The British forcefully colonized people for hundreds of years and used slavery
So did every other nation, civilization and empire in history that rose to power. The British were the first to try to end it. What changed absolutely everything was the industrial revolution and the invention of modernity, which made slavery obsolete... thanks to the British.
By the way, slavery is still perpetrated today in northern Africa. Why do you choose to ignore it and instead dwell endlessly on something that happened 250 years ago and that nobody alive today participated in or can be blamed for in any way?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,093
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,095
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Just because the British did bad things in the past doesn't mean they need to give up on their society now.
There are cultures that aren't integrating, and end up harming others. Brits have every right to advocate for migration controls, and they shouldn't be harassed by the police and media for it.
Just because the British did bad things in the past doesn't mean they need to give up on their society now.
There are cultures that aren't integrating, and end up harming others. Brits have every right to advocate for migration controls, and they shouldn't be harassed by the police and media for it.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,097
@previous (D)
They already have. And tons of "those people" have integrated and lived in the UK for generation after generation
They already have. And tons of "those people" have integrated and lived in the UK for generation after generation
boof joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,098
@1,314,095 (D)
Did the British "integrate" into Indian culture when they brutally colonized that country?
Did the British "integrate" into Indian culture when they brutally colonized that country?
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,099
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,100
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,101
@previous (boof)
Not at all what that sentence said.
What do you expect Brits to do, just stop caring about their own people out of guilt?
Not at all what that sentence said.
What do you expect Brits to do, just stop caring about their own people out of guilt?
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,102
@previous (D)
I expect them to care for their people, and the people they colonized, at the same time.
I expect them to care for their people, and the people they colonized, at the same time.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,103
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,114
@1,314,102 (boof)
The UK doesn't have the resources to care for the entire planet, and the empire spanned most of the planet in the past.
Caring for people doesn't mean tolerating cultures that are inherently harmful. Eventually a decision has to be made, protect the locals, or bring in more people from cultures that threaten them.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Is there a reason you ignored the entire conversation above delineating the differences between race, citizenship, and culture?
A conversation about culture is impossible because half the population refuses to have it, and only responds to strawman like you are doing right now.
The UK doesn't have the resources to care for the entire planet, and the empire spanned most of the planet in the past.
Caring for people doesn't mean tolerating cultures that are inherently harmful. Eventually a decision has to be made, protect the locals, or bring in more people from cultures that threaten them.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Is there a reason you ignored the entire conversation above delineating the differences between race, citizenship, and culture?
A conversation about culture is impossible because half the population refuses to have it, and only responds to strawman like you are doing right now.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 4 months ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,119
@previous (D)
Maybe the UK should have thought about that before they colonized and brutalized the world, eh?
Maybe the UK should have thought about that before they colonized and brutalized the world, eh?
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,121
@previous (G)
So we agree that this is harmful to the nation it is happening to.
Maybe all those the little girls that got stabbed (those that didn't die) will think about their responsibility in all this.
So we agree that this is harmful to the nation it is happening to.
Maybe all those the little girls that got stabbed (those that didn't die) will think about their responsibility in all this.
Anonymous G replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,122
@previous (D)
Do you think the millions of Indian children who starved to death because Churchill exported all their grain should have considered their responsibility in it?
Do you think the millions of Indian children who starved to death because Churchill exported all their grain should have considered their responsibility in it?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,128
@1,314,093 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Are you stupid or something?
Lol, calling me stupid is the best argument you've got? You are clearly pig ignorant about history.
> You missed the point by a mile
No I didn't, you did.
I'll repeat what Anon C said, and maybe this time it'll get into your thick, arrogant head:
> Look at this person, who doesn't know that 1) if a slave stepped foot on English soil they were free and 2) the British abolished slavery and used the navy to force everyone else to do it too.
@1,314,119 (G)
> Maybe the UK should have thought about that before they colonized and brutalized the world, eh?
Oh look, another clueless idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.
> Are you stupid or something?
Lol, calling me stupid is the best argument you've got? You are clearly pig ignorant about history.
> You missed the point by a mile
No I didn't, you did.
I'll repeat what Anon C said, and maybe this time it'll get into your thick, arrogant head:
> Look at this person, who doesn't know that 1) if a slave stepped foot on English soil they were free and 2) the British abolished slavery and used the navy to force everyone else to do it too.
@1,314,119 (G)
> Maybe the UK should have thought about that before they colonized and brutalized the world, eh?
Oh look, another clueless idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,129
@1,314,103 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Britain was 99% white in the 1960s. This was after the empire, in case you didn't know.
Britain was 99% white in the 1960s. This was after the empire, in case you didn't know.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,135
@1,314,114 (D)
@previous (C)
None of this matters
If someone is born in Britain and lives in Britain, they are British
Race absolutely doesn't matter, so saying blood means nothing
@previous (C)
None of this matters
If someone is born in Britain and lives in Britain, they are British
Race absolutely doesn't matter, so saying blood means nothing
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,136
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> If someone is born in Britain and lives in Britain, they are British
Such a simpleton point of view.
Would you say the same thing about somebody from China? Or an Indian person? Or any other nationality for that matter? If you were born in Japan and grow up in Japan but happen to be pure Swedish heritage, are you Japanese? Is Elon Musk African-American?
Why is the UK the only country in the world which isn't allowed to have a national identity?
> If someone is born in Britain and lives in Britain, they are British
Such a simpleton point of view.
Would you say the same thing about somebody from China? Or an Indian person? Or any other nationality for that matter? If you were born in Japan and grow up in Japan but happen to be pure Swedish heritage, are you Japanese? Is Elon Musk African-American?
Why is the UK the only country in the world which isn't allowed to have a national identity?
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,137
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,145
@1,314,136 (A)
Yes and the same for America
You can't forcefully ship people to your country, allow them to live for sometimes hundreds of years and then claim blood is what makes a citizen
Yes and the same for America
You can't forcefully ship people to your country, allow them to live for sometimes hundreds of years and then claim blood is what makes a citizen
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,146
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,147
Anonymous C double-posted this 4 months ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,148
@1,314,145 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Once again, any slave who stepped foot on English soil was free. Until the 1960s, Britain was 99% white.
Once again, any slave who stepped foot on English soil was free. Until the 1960s, Britain was 99% white.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,150
@1,314,147 (C)
@previous (C)
Britain was heavily involved in the slave trade and had slaves in various countries
You can state something over and over again but that changes nothing
@previous (C)
Britain was heavily involved in the slave trade and had slaves in various countries
You can state something over and over again but that changes nothing
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,157
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Nobody got "shipped to Britain" for hundreds of years, and even if they did it wouldn't change that British is a nation of people of common descent, not just words on a paper.
Nobody got "shipped to Britain" for hundreds of years, and even if they did it wouldn't change that British is a nation of people of common descent, not just words on a paper.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,161
Anonymous D double-posted this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,162
@1,314,135 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> None of this matters
If someone makes a point about culture, and you respond acting like they said something about citizenship, it actually does matter.
They are not the same thing, and you should know the difference. Replying to a strawman is a sign you can't think of any response to the actual point.
> None of this matters
If someone makes a point about culture, and you respond acting like they said something about citizenship, it actually does matter.
They are not the same thing, and you should know the difference. Replying to a strawman is a sign you can't think of any response to the actual point.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 50 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,174
@1,314,157 (C)
Yes they absolutely did ship people. And I think you can have a national identity with multiple races involved
Yes they absolutely did ship people. And I think you can have a national identity with multiple races involved
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 22 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,175
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,234
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,240
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,242
@1,314,174 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Why would a slave owner, who invested money into ownership of the slave, ship them to a country where if they step one foot they are considered free men? There were no slaves in Britain.
Why would a slave owner, who invested money into ownership of the slave, ship them to a country where if they step one foot they are considered free men? There were no slaves in Britain.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 45 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,243
@1,314,240 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You're confusing the other poster with me.
After I made the distinction between the race, citizenship, and culture you cited me and first confused citizenship and culture, and then race and culture.
Not once actually talking about culture itself.
You're confusing the other poster with me.
After I made the distinction between the race, citizenship, and culture you cited me and first confused citizenship and culture, and then race and culture.
Not once actually talking about culture itself.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,246
@1,314,242 (C)
There were definitely slaves in Britain and also British occupied countries. Believe it or not. I don't care
There were definitely slaves in Britain and also British occupied countries. Believe it or not. I don't care
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 45 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,247
@1,314,243 (D)
I never once made a claim for culture. I said blood doesn't determine this
Also you both posted at exactly the same time
I never once made a claim for culture. I said blood doesn't determine this
Also you both posted at exactly the same time
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,248
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I never once made a claim for culture.
The whole discussion is about a group of protestors who have concerns about a culture that is expanding in Britain.
Talking about citizenship, when that was never the issue, is off-topic. Everyone knows he was a citizen, the actual point was they don't want to grant citizenship to new migrants who share his harmful culture.
> I said blood doesn't determine this
>
> Also you both posted at exactly the same time
I managed to avoid replying to him trying to refute your arguments. It's easy to keep track.
> I never once made a claim for culture.
The whole discussion is about a group of protestors who have concerns about a culture that is expanding in Britain.
Talking about citizenship, when that was never the issue, is off-topic. Everyone knows he was a citizen, the actual point was they don't want to grant citizenship to new migrants who share his harmful culture.
> I said blood doesn't determine this
>
> Also you both posted at exactly the same time
I managed to avoid replying to him trying to refute your arguments. It's easy to keep track.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,249
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,250
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I made my first comment saying "it's culture" before you were in the thread. Before the thread, the protestors we're talking about culture.
To clarify, you agree there should be restrictions on Islamic migration?
I made my first comment saying "it's culture" before you were in the thread. Before the thread, the protestors we're talking about culture.
To clarify, you agree there should be restrictions on Islamic migration?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,252
@previous (D)
I do agree. You want me to have ideas about things more than you want to actually listen to my ideas
I do agree. You want me to have ideas about things more than you want to actually listen to my ideas
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,268
@1,314,246 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> There were definitely slaves in Britain
Citation definitely needed (unless you're talking about Roman Britain?)
> There were definitely slaves in Britain
Citation definitely needed (unless you're talking about Roman Britain?)
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,275
@previous (A)
https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/slave-traders-and-plantation-wealth/britain-and-the-slave-trade/#:~:text=John%20Lok%20is%20the%20first,people%20from%20Guinea%20to%20England.
https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/black-lives-in-england/#:~:text=The%20majority%20worked%20in%20domestic,the%20law%20was%20often%20misinterpreted
https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/slave-traders-and-plantation-wealth/britain-and-the-slave-trade/#:~:text=John%20Lok%20is%20the%20first,people%20from%20Guinea%20to%20England.
https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/sites-of-memory/black-lives-in-england/#:~:text=The%20majority%20worked%20in%20domestic,the%20law%20was%20often%20misinterpreted
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,277
@1,314,268 (A)
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-buried-scale-revealed
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-buried-scale-revealed
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC triple-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,280
@1,314,268 (A)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/articles/z67dbdm#:~:text=Middle%20class%20Britons&text=In%201833%2C%20middle%20class%20people,them%20through%20inheritance%20or%20marriage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/articles/z67dbdm#:~:text=Middle%20class%20Britons&text=In%201833%2C%20middle%20class%20people,them%20through%20inheritance%20or%20marriage.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,357
@1,314,277 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
From your own link:
> Whereas the cotton plantations of the American south were established on the soil of the continental United States, British slavery took place 3,000 miles away in the Caribbean.
Now say sorry.
From your own link:
> Whereas the cotton plantations of the American south were established on the soil of the continental United States, British slavery took place 3,000 miles away in the Caribbean.
Now say sorry.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,360
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,361
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,369
@1,314,280 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
There's quite a lot of misinformation in the links you gave, so I'll go in chronological order and deal with the main claims:
1555:
> John Lok is the first recorded Englishman to have taken enslaved people from Africa. In 1555 he brought five enslaved people from Guinea to England.
It was four, not five, and one of them was the son of a local chief. They were brought to England by Lok not as slaves but in order to educate them, so that in the future they might act as interpreters and help the English break into the Portuguese slave market. They were returned to Guinea in 1557. I encourage you to look up these details.
If Lok had any designs on taking over some of the Portuguese market, then his plans would have been scuppered, because in the same year Queen Mary (under pressure from Spain and Portugal) forbade English involvement in Guinea. It's quite difficult to find mention of this online, but please do attempt to look it up.
1562:
> John Hawkins (from 1532 to 1595) of Plymouth is acknowledged as the pioneer of the English slave trade.
True, but again worded so as to make it seem as though he brought slaves to be slaves in England. His first trade was 300 slaves from Sierra Leone to the West Indies. He also traded illegally with the Spanish colonies, but he did not bring slaves to England. Again, look it up.
1672:
> The Royal African Company is formed in order to regulate the English slave trade:
Let's get this right. Firstly the RAC was established in 1660, not 1672. King Charles II had granted it a monopoly on ALL English trade with Africa, and the original purpose was mainly to trade gold. Trade in slaves was added to the agenda in 1663, however between 1667 and 1671, the RAC went bankrupt, despite extensive royal patronage and connections. This is the one point in history I'll grant you when slavery was technically legal both in England and its empire, but only because Charles II (unlawfully) used the courts to circumvent parliament: in 1677 the court held that people could be "goods" or absolute property if they were "infidels", i.e. aliens, outside of the protection of the law (Butts v. Penny).
Despite the efforts of both Charles II and James II to ignore laws and invent new ones, history reveals that a consistent policy arose whereby England condoned slavery in the colonies, but not at home. It seems England's "free society" tolerated slavery only because it was distant and across the ocean.
In 1689 (after James II got the boot) all 12 high court justices of the common law courts decreed that no decisions from James II's reign should ever be cited as precedent - this included all of the laws which attempted to legitimate slavery. This plus the common law policy provided a foundation for the eventual complete abolition of slavery.
16th - 19th century:
> Triangular slave trade
Yes, it is true that slave ships were sent from England to buy slaves (the largest port being Liverpool). Yes, it is true that money and goods were received in English ports, notably Liverpool, London and Bristol, as proceeds from selling slaves. But it is not true that slaves were brought to England to be slaves. The English triangle went clockwise: 1. Slave ships were sent from England to Africa, 2. Slaves were bought in Africa and transported mainly to the Carribean, and later further north to America, 3. Goods produced in the New World were transported back to England.
Also, what would be the point of bringing slaves to England?
> Whilst slavery had no legal basis in England, the law was often misinterpreted.
Forgive me, your honour, I killed that guy because I misinterpreted the law about murder... you're gonna let me off, right?
> Black people previously enslaved in the colonies overseas and then brought to England by their owners, were often still treated as slaves.
No, they weren't. Wealthy people certainly had servants (both black and white, but mostly white) but they were paid and given board and lodging.
The article from The Guardian is a typical collection of breathless half truths we've come to expect from them. Anyway, it makes no mention of slaves in England, so I'm not sure why you cited it.
I'm afraid you'll have to do better than this.
There's quite a lot of misinformation in the links you gave, so I'll go in chronological order and deal with the main claims:
1555:
> John Lok is the first recorded Englishman to have taken enslaved people from Africa. In 1555 he brought five enslaved people from Guinea to England.
It was four, not five, and one of them was the son of a local chief. They were brought to England by Lok not as slaves but in order to educate them, so that in the future they might act as interpreters and help the English break into the Portuguese slave market. They were returned to Guinea in 1557. I encourage you to look up these details.
If Lok had any designs on taking over some of the Portuguese market, then his plans would have been scuppered, because in the same year Queen Mary (under pressure from Spain and Portugal) forbade English involvement in Guinea. It's quite difficult to find mention of this online, but please do attempt to look it up.
1562:
> John Hawkins (from 1532 to 1595) of Plymouth is acknowledged as the pioneer of the English slave trade.
True, but again worded so as to make it seem as though he brought slaves to be slaves in England. His first trade was 300 slaves from Sierra Leone to the West Indies. He also traded illegally with the Spanish colonies, but he did not bring slaves to England. Again, look it up.
1672:
> The Royal African Company is formed in order to regulate the English slave trade:
Let's get this right. Firstly the RAC was established in 1660, not 1672. King Charles II had granted it a monopoly on ALL English trade with Africa, and the original purpose was mainly to trade gold. Trade in slaves was added to the agenda in 1663, however between 1667 and 1671, the RAC went bankrupt, despite extensive royal patronage and connections. This is the one point in history I'll grant you when slavery was technically legal both in England and its empire, but only because Charles II (unlawfully) used the courts to circumvent parliament: in 1677 the court held that people could be "goods" or absolute property if they were "infidels", i.e. aliens, outside of the protection of the law (Butts v. Penny).
Despite the efforts of both Charles II and James II to ignore laws and invent new ones, history reveals that a consistent policy arose whereby England condoned slavery in the colonies, but not at home. It seems England's "free society" tolerated slavery only because it was distant and across the ocean.
In 1689 (after James II got the boot) all 12 high court justices of the common law courts decreed that no decisions from James II's reign should ever be cited as precedent - this included all of the laws which attempted to legitimate slavery. This plus the common law policy provided a foundation for the eventual complete abolition of slavery.
16th - 19th century:
> Triangular slave trade
Yes, it is true that slave ships were sent from England to buy slaves (the largest port being Liverpool). Yes, it is true that money and goods were received in English ports, notably Liverpool, London and Bristol, as proceeds from selling slaves. But it is not true that slaves were brought to England to be slaves. The English triangle went clockwise: 1. Slave ships were sent from England to Africa, 2. Slaves were bought in Africa and transported mainly to the Carribean, and later further north to America, 3. Goods produced in the New World were transported back to England.
Also, what would be the point of bringing slaves to England?
> Whilst slavery had no legal basis in England, the law was often misinterpreted.
Forgive me, your honour, I killed that guy because I misinterpreted the law about murder... you're gonna let me off, right?
> Black people previously enslaved in the colonies overseas and then brought to England by their owners, were often still treated as slaves.
No, they weren't. Wealthy people certainly had servants (both black and white, but mostly white) but they were paid and given board and lodging.
The article from The Guardian is a typical collection of breathless half truths we've come to expect from them. Anyway, it makes no mention of slaves in England, so I'm not sure why you cited it.
I'm afraid you'll have to do better than this.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,370
@previous (A)
> > Whilst slavery had no legal basis in England, the law was often misinterpreted.
> Forgive me, your honour, I killed that guy because I misinterpreted the law about murder... you're gonna let me off, right?
Wait, are you telling me there have never been criminals in the british isles?
> > Whilst slavery had no legal basis in England, the law was often misinterpreted.
> Forgive me, your honour, I killed that guy because I misinterpreted the law about murder... you're gonna let me off, right?
Wait, are you telling me there have never been criminals in the british isles?
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,371
@previous (H)
> > > Whilst slavery had no legal basis in England, the law was often misinterpreted.
> > Forgive me, your honour, I killed that guy because I misinterpreted the law about murder... you're gonna let me off, right?
> Wait, are you telling me there have never been criminals in the british isles?
I waited. Obviously not. I'm saying the argument that because a law was misinterpreted meant that the practice was condoned and effectively legal & commonplace is laughable.
> > > Whilst slavery had no legal basis in England, the law was often misinterpreted.
> > Forgive me, your honour, I killed that guy because I misinterpreted the law about murder... you're gonna let me off, right?
> Wait, are you telling me there have never been criminals in the british isles?
I waited. Obviously not. I'm saying the argument that because a law was misinterpreted meant that the practice was condoned and effectively legal & commonplace is laughable.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,373
@previous (A)
When were referring to whether blood makes a citizen, it doesn't matter how commonplace it was
Britons enslaved a variety of people and did bring some back. The amount brought back matters not. What do you actually think you're arguing?
The fact that you think that Britain ending slavery is more significant than the huge part they plated in enslaving people is odd
When were referring to whether blood makes a citizen, it doesn't matter how commonplace it was
Britons enslaved a variety of people and did bring some back. The amount brought back matters not. What do you actually think you're arguing?
The fact that you think that Britain ending slavery is more significant than the huge part they plated in enslaving people is odd
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,374
Also if slaves became citizens as soon as they touched British soil, using blood as a marker for citizenship makes even less sense
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,376
@1,314,373 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> What do you actually think you're arguing?
You claimed here @1,314,246 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC): "There were definitely slaves in Britain"
I said citation needed. You proceeded to cite stuff about the role the English played in the slave trade in general. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to your original claim that there were slaves in Britain. Is that clear enough?
> The fact that you think that Britain ending slavery is more significant than the huge part they plated in enslaving people is odd
What is extremely odd and a little disturbing is your refusal to acknowledge that every nation on earth in the late medieval to early modern period participated in slavery, either as slaver or enslaved. You are judging Britain by 20th C standards and concluding that they must be the most evil nation in history, when they are in fact the inventors and instigators of your modern 20th C standards and civilization. The fact that they ended slavery all around the world is MUCH more significant.
By the way, why don't you look into the Eastern/Arab Muslim slave trade?
> What do you actually think you're arguing?
You claimed here @1,314,246 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC): "There were definitely slaves in Britain"
I said citation needed. You proceeded to cite stuff about the role the English played in the slave trade in general. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to your original claim that there were slaves in Britain. Is that clear enough?
> The fact that you think that Britain ending slavery is more significant than the huge part they plated in enslaving people is odd
What is extremely odd and a little disturbing is your refusal to acknowledge that every nation on earth in the late medieval to early modern period participated in slavery, either as slaver or enslaved. You are judging Britain by 20th C standards and concluding that they must be the most evil nation in history, when they are in fact the inventors and instigators of your modern 20th C standards and civilization. The fact that they ended slavery all around the world is MUCH more significant.
By the way, why don't you look into the Eastern/Arab Muslim slave trade?
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,407
@previous (A)
Actually, I'm going to need you to cite a source. Your claim that there were never any slaves in any part of the British isles is the extraordinary assertion, given what we know of the empire's history. Put up or shut up. You have zero evidence.
Actually, I'm going to need you to cite a source. Your claim that there were never any slaves in any part of the British isles is the extraordinary assertion, given what we know of the empire's history. Put up or shut up. You have zero evidence.
Anonymous H double-posted this 4 months ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,408
Oh, and I'll leave this here for your perusal
https://qz.com/1301918/researchers-discovered-hundreds-of-ads-for-runaway-slaves-in-18th-century-britain
https://qz.com/1301918/researchers-discovered-hundreds-of-ads-for-runaway-slaves-in-18th-century-britain
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 58 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,421
@1,314,376 (A)
I know that other countries had slavery and never claimed otherwise
Also slavery still exists currently, so Britain mat have put in legal restrictions, but slavery has never technically ended
I'm finding proof of slaves in a Britain now. Not that it'll change whatever weird ideas you have about the subject
I know that other countries had slavery and never claimed otherwise
Also slavery still exists currently, so Britain mat have put in legal restrictions, but slavery has never technically ended
I'm finding proof of slaves in a Britain now. Not that it'll change whatever weird ideas you have about the subject
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 36 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,422
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,423
@1,314,407 (H)
> Your claim that there were never any slaves in any part of the British isles is the extraordinary assertion
No no, it is not up to me to prove a negative. It is up to YOU to provide the evidence.
> given what we know of the empire's history
Clearly you know precious little.
Why does the transcription of that newspaper notice you referenced conveniently leave out this bit:
"He was set ashore on the 17th of February last from on board Her Majesty's Ship Tilbury"
So this is clearly a case of a ship's captain who owned a slave on board a ship, who escaped when they docked at Long Reach. Is really the best example they've got of slavery in mainland Britain?
I went and had a look at other examples of these adverts in their database. The first 20 entries I looked at, selected at random, were all exactly the same - all cases of slaves running away from on board ships (note: not houses, ships).
I'll leave you with a question which, if you have half a brain you should immediately leap to the correct answer: Why do you think they tried to run away when their ship landed in Britain?
> Your claim that there were never any slaves in any part of the British isles is the extraordinary assertion
No no, it is not up to me to prove a negative. It is up to YOU to provide the evidence.
> given what we know of the empire's history
Clearly you know precious little.
Why does the transcription of that newspaper notice you referenced conveniently leave out this bit:
"He was set ashore on the 17th of February last from on board Her Majesty's Ship Tilbury"
So this is clearly a case of a ship's captain who owned a slave on board a ship, who escaped when they docked at Long Reach. Is really the best example they've got of slavery in mainland Britain?
I went and had a look at other examples of these adverts in their database. The first 20 entries I looked at, selected at random, were all exactly the same - all cases of slaves running away from on board ships (note: not houses, ships).
I'll leave you with a question which, if you have half a brain you should immediately leap to the correct answer: Why do you think they tried to run away when their ship landed in Britain?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,424
@1,314,421 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Not that it'll change whatever weird ideas you have about the subject
This is important: They are not my weird ideas. Everything I've said to you can be backed up by historical literature (despite what Anon H here thinks). I urge you to go and do some proper, in depth research. Don't just skim the surface. Do your best to ignore your own biases.
> I'm finding proof of slaves in a Britain now.
Good luck.
> Not that it'll change whatever weird ideas you have about the subject
This is important: They are not my weird ideas. Everything I've said to you can be backed up by historical literature (despite what Anon H here thinks). I urge you to go and do some proper, in depth research. Don't just skim the surface. Do your best to ignore your own biases.
> I'm finding proof of slaves in a Britain now.
Good luck.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,425
@previous (A)
https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/database/display/?rid=446
https://glasgowmuseumsslavery.co.uk/2018/08/14/gustavus-browns-runaway-slave/
https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/for_sale/
https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/
There were slaves and other people of color. Citizenship isn't about Blood
https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/database/display/?rid=446
https://glasgowmuseumsslavery.co.uk/2018/08/14/gustavus-browns-runaway-slave/
https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/for_sale/
https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/
There were slaves and other people of color. Citizenship isn't about Blood
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 40 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,426
@1,314,423 (A)
You ignored everything in the link that disproved your claims. And you do need to show evidence of your extraordinary claim. It isn't "proving a negative", you have no idea what that means.
You ignored everything in the link that disproved your claims. And you do need to show evidence of your extraordinary claim. It isn't "proving a negative", you have no idea what that means.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,427
@previous (H)
> You ignored everything in the link that disproved your claims.
No I didn't. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and go through the entire database just to find out what I already know - that all of these adverts are for slaves who have run away from ships when they docked at an English port (because they knew very well that was their best shot at freedom - the answer to the question I asked which you failed to answer - lol, dummy).
> And you do need to show evidence of your extraordinary claim. It isn't "proving a negative", you have no idea what that means.
Again, Kook's claim: "There were definitely slaves in Britain"
My counter-claim: No there weren't - there's no evidence.
You: PrOvE tHaT tHeRe'S nO eViDeNcE!!!1!
You're quite thick, aren't you?
> You ignored everything in the link that disproved your claims.
No I didn't. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and go through the entire database just to find out what I already know - that all of these adverts are for slaves who have run away from ships when they docked at an English port (because they knew very well that was their best shot at freedom - the answer to the question I asked which you failed to answer - lol, dummy).
> And you do need to show evidence of your extraordinary claim. It isn't "proving a negative", you have no idea what that means.
Again, Kook's claim: "There were definitely slaves in Britain"
My counter-claim: No there weren't - there's no evidence.
You: PrOvE tHaT tHeRe'S nO eViDeNcE!!!1!
You're quite thick, aren't you?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,428
Also Britain took over a bunch of other countries and Islands and used them as slave colonies. Them ending slavery is correcting their own mistake
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,429
@1,314,427 (A)
You didn't even read the article. Going back to your original contention, that Britain was a monoculture with only whites until only recently... no it wasn't, you fucking retard
You didn't even read the article. Going back to your original contention, that Britain was a monoculture with only whites until only recently... no it wasn't, you fucking retard
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 24 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,430
@1,314,425 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/database/display/?rid=446
>
> https://glasgowmuseumsslavery.co.uk/2018/08/14/gustavus-browns-runaway-slave/
>
> https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/for_sale/
>
> https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/
Thanks, I will check these out when I have some time.
> There were slaves and other people of color. Citizenship isn't about Blood
Note that I'm only disputing your claim that there were slaves in Britain, not the part about there being people of colour, or the citizenship thing.
> https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/database/display/?rid=446
>
> https://glasgowmuseumsslavery.co.uk/2018/08/14/gustavus-browns-runaway-slave/
>
> https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/for_sale/
>
> https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/
Thanks, I will check these out when I have some time.
> There were slaves and other people of color. Citizenship isn't about Blood
Note that I'm only disputing your claim that there were slaves in Britain, not the part about there being people of colour, or the citizenship thing.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,431
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 38 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,432
@1,314,429 (H)
> You didn't even read the article
I did, you dumb cunt. I told you I even went and had a look at the database they linked to - here: https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/database/table/ - bet YOU didn't bother looking at it.
> Going back to your original contention, that Britain was a monoculture with only whites until only recently
Er, I never said that. Your reading and comprehension abilities are atrocious.
> you fucking retard
Lol, you're a fine one to talk!
> You didn't even read the article
I did, you dumb cunt. I told you I even went and had a look at the database they linked to - here: https://www.runaways.gla.ac.uk/database/table/ - bet YOU didn't bother looking at it.
> Going back to your original contention, that Britain was a monoculture with only whites until only recently
Er, I never said that. Your reading and comprehension abilities are atrocious.
> you fucking retard
Lol, you're a fine one to talk!
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 39 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,433
@1,314,431 (H)
> You're backtracking then, faggot
No I'm not - have another read through the thread, dumdum.
> You're backtracking then, faggot
No I'm not - have another read through the thread, dumdum.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,434
@previous (A)
You aren't not backtracking. And I don't have to prove a negative, therefore you are backtracking. Get fucked.
You aren't not backtracking. And I don't have to prove a negative, therefore you are backtracking. Get fucked.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous H double-posted this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,435
@1,314,430 (A)
> Note that I'm only disputing your claim that there were slaves in Britain, not the part about there being people of colour, or the citizenship thing.
You are either recanting everything you said about what it means to be British or you aren't. Which is it? If you're recanting, the conversation is over. We only got here because you're dumb and wrong.
> Note that I'm only disputing your claim that there were slaves in Britain, not the part about there being people of colour, or the citizenship thing.
You are either recanting everything you said about what it means to be British or you aren't. Which is it? If you're recanting, the conversation is over. We only got here because you're dumb and wrong.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 20 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,436
@1,314,434 (H)
> You aren't not backtracking. And I don't have to prove a negative, therefore you are backtracking. Get fucked.
Oh I see, I think I understand now - you think ALL people of colour in Britain between say 1600 and 1850 were slaves? So you're racist as well as stupid (and ignorant). Got it.
> You aren't not backtracking. And I don't have to prove a negative, therefore you are backtracking. Get fucked.
Oh I see, I think I understand now - you think ALL people of colour in Britain between say 1600 and 1850 were slaves? So you're racist as well as stupid (and ignorant). Got it.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,438
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 47 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,440
@1,314,435 (H)
> You are either recanting everything you said about what it means to be British or you aren't. Which is it? If you're recanting, the conversation is over. We only got here because you're dumb and wrong.
Please cite where I was arguing about what it means to be British (pst, I think you'll find that was Anons C and D, not me).
> You are either recanting everything you said about what it means to be British or you aren't. Which is it? If you're recanting, the conversation is over. We only got here because you're dumb and wrong.
Please cite where I was arguing about what it means to be British (pst, I think you'll find that was Anons C and D, not me).
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 33 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,441
@previous (A)
I think you'll find that there is no evidence to suggest that you aren't anons C and D.
I think you'll find that there is no evidence to suggest that you aren't anons C and D.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,443
@1,314,438 (H)
> you fucking lost.
You keep telling yourself that if it helps calm you down out of the apoplectic rage you've worked yourself up into.
> you fucking lost.
You keep telling yourself that if it helps calm you down out of the apoplectic rage you've worked yourself up into.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,444
@1,314,441 (H)
> I think you'll find that there is no evidence to suggest that you aren't anons C and D.
"Wah wah, every poster who disagrees with me is the same!"
Sorry mate, but you're wrong.
> I think you'll find that there is no evidence to suggest that you aren't anons C and D.
"Wah wah, every poster who disagrees with me is the same!"
Sorry mate, but you're wrong.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 46 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,445
@1,314,443 (A)
Keep being wrong, what do I care? It is estimated that there were as many as 20,000 slaves in Britain during the period in question. Actual slaves, actually in Britain. Similar to the number of slaves in the British colonies in North America. Nobody who comes across this thread will be convinced by your nonsense apocryphal telling of history. You have been shown to be incorrect.
Keep being wrong, what do I care? It is estimated that there were as many as 20,000 slaves in Britain during the period in question. Actual slaves, actually in Britain. Similar to the number of slaves in the British colonies in North America. Nobody who comes across this thread will be convinced by your nonsense apocryphal telling of history. You have been shown to be incorrect.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,450
@previous (H)
@1,314,425 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Actual slaves, actually in Britain.
By the way, just in case you hadn't noticed I thought I'd point out that the 4th paragraph on the home page of the site you referenced with supposed irrefutable proof of this begins:
"Slavery did not exist in Britain as it did in the colonies."
Just saying.
> You have been shown to be incorrect.
Lol.
@1,314,425 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Actual slaves, actually in Britain.
By the way, just in case you hadn't noticed I thought I'd point out that the 4th paragraph on the home page of the site you referenced with supposed irrefutable proof of this begins:
"Slavery did not exist in Britain as it did in the colonies."
Just saying.
> You have been shown to be incorrect.
Lol.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,451
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,452
So we've established that
1. Britain had slaves within the country
2. Allowing slaves freedom in Britain means that blood isn't a good indicator of what makes a citizen
3. And giving credit to Britain for ending something that they heavily profited in and forced upon other countries is odd
This thread went well. Stay mad nationalists
1. Britain had slaves within the country
2. Allowing slaves freedom in Britain means that blood isn't a good indicator of what makes a citizen
3. And giving credit to Britain for ending something that they heavily profited in and forced upon other countries is odd
This thread went well. Stay mad nationalists
Anonymous E replied with this 4 months ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,486
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> So we've established that
schizoposting doesnt establish anything, thanks
> So we've established that
schizoposting doesnt establish anything, thanks
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 21 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,617
@1,314,425 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Citizenship isn't about Blood
British citizenship doesn't make you British.
> Citizenship isn't about Blood
British citizenship doesn't make you British.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,620
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,627
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You dominated your own asshole, and highly embarrassed yourself by proving yourself wrong with your own links.
You dominated your own asshole, and highly embarrassed yourself by proving yourself wrong with your own links.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,632
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,633
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,639
@1,314,620 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You confused citizenship with both race and culture. You completely missed the point.
You confused citizenship with both race and culture. You completely missed the point.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 23 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,653
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,656
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,658
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,659
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,661
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,665
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,667
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 37 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,681
@1,314,659 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Fuck off, you lost and look pathetic
You seem extremely angry. Is that due to the mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to justify your unbelievably distorted perception of historical facts and truths?
> So we've established that...
We have done no such thing. Joseph Goebbels's law of propaganda: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" is itself a lie, you know. Simply stubbornly repeating your claims over and over again doesn't make them any more true than when you said them the first time.
> Fuck off, you lost and look pathetic
You seem extremely angry. Is that due to the mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to justify your unbelievably distorted perception of historical facts and truths?
> So we've established that...
We have done no such thing. Joseph Goebbels's law of propaganda: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" is itself a lie, you know. Simply stubbornly repeating your claims over and over again doesn't make them any more true than when you said them the first time.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,682
Anonymous E replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,690
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,694
@1,314,682 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Okay little dumdum
Also not a valid argument I'm afraid. This is a type of logical fallacy known as "ad hominem", where instead of attacking the argument you attack the person.
Here, let me attempt to educate you a little about the legality of slavery in England over the last 900 or so years. I have some historical dates and events for you to look up and read up about. I have little confidence that you will actually do so, because you are one of the most stubborn and arrogant people I've ever come across, but I live in hope:
1102: Council of Westminster passed a resolution outlawing slavery in England: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." (Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury)
C1160: King Henry II sets free some of his villeins, "because in the beginning nature made all men free, and afterwards the law of nations reduced some under the yoke of servitude".
1381: General charter of emancipation abolishing serfdom in England (King Richard II)
1562: After John Hawkins's first voyage to Guinea - Queen Elizabeth I is reported to have said "If any Africans should be carried away without their free consent, it would be detestable and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertaking."
1569: Cartwright (English court case) - the court held that a slave brought by a man, Cartwright, from Russia to England must be freed.
1696: Chamberlain v Harvey - Chief Justice Holt found that there could not be an action for trover in relation to black slaves because the common law did not recognise black people as having a different status to others - "No man can have property in the person of another while in England."
1750: Galway v. Cadee - Baron Thompson stated that a slave became free on arrival in England.
1763: Shanley v Harvey - Lord Chancellor, Lord Henley declared that as soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free. He asserted that a black person could take his former master to court for cruel treatment, and could have a habeas corpus if restrained of his liberty.
1772: Somersett v Stewart - William Murray, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield ruled that it was unlawful for Charles Stewart, a customs official from Boston MA, to transport James Somerset, a slave he had bought in Virginia, forcibly out of England. "It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged."
So we've established that:
1. There were no slaves in England because nobody in England has ever, according to common law, been allowed to own another human being and hold them against their will without habeas corpus.
2. The notion that as soon as a slave set foot in England they became free has consistently been upheld for centuries.
3. The fact that a tiny handful of people "misinterpreted" / broke the law does not change this fact.
> Okay little dumdum
Also not a valid argument I'm afraid. This is a type of logical fallacy known as "ad hominem", where instead of attacking the argument you attack the person.
Here, let me attempt to educate you a little about the legality of slavery in England over the last 900 or so years. I have some historical dates and events for you to look up and read up about. I have little confidence that you will actually do so, because you are one of the most stubborn and arrogant people I've ever come across, but I live in hope:
1102: Council of Westminster passed a resolution outlawing slavery in England: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals." (Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury)
C1160: King Henry II sets free some of his villeins, "because in the beginning nature made all men free, and afterwards the law of nations reduced some under the yoke of servitude".
1381: General charter of emancipation abolishing serfdom in England (King Richard II)
1562: After John Hawkins's first voyage to Guinea - Queen Elizabeth I is reported to have said "If any Africans should be carried away without their free consent, it would be detestable and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertaking."
1569: Cartwright (English court case) - the court held that a slave brought by a man, Cartwright, from Russia to England must be freed.
1696: Chamberlain v Harvey - Chief Justice Holt found that there could not be an action for trover in relation to black slaves because the common law did not recognise black people as having a different status to others - "No man can have property in the person of another while in England."
1750: Galway v. Cadee - Baron Thompson stated that a slave became free on arrival in England.
1763: Shanley v Harvey - Lord Chancellor, Lord Henley declared that as soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free. He asserted that a black person could take his former master to court for cruel treatment, and could have a habeas corpus if restrained of his liberty.
1772: Somersett v Stewart - William Murray, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield ruled that it was unlawful for Charles Stewart, a customs official from Boston MA, to transport James Somerset, a slave he had bought in Virginia, forcibly out of England. "It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged."
So we've established that:
1. There were no slaves in England because nobody in England has ever, according to common law, been allowed to own another human being and hold them against their will without habeas corpus.
2. The notion that as soon as a slave set foot in England they became free has consistently been upheld for centuries.
3. The fact that a tiny handful of people "misinterpreted" / broke the law does not change this fact.
(Edited 12 minutes later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 56 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,699
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,708
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Everyone had slaves, only Britain was able to enforce a ban across the globe. You are shamelessly disingenuous.
Everyone had slaves, only Britain was able to enforce a ban across the globe. You are shamelessly disingenuous.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,732
@1,314,699 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So you started trying to prove that Britain "shipped slaves across and interbred", and now you're claiming victory because you've proven that there were slaves somewhere in the British Empire. Lol.
So you started trying to prove that Britain "shipped slaves across and interbred", and now you're claiming victory because you've proven that there were slaves somewhere in the British Empire. Lol.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,738
@previous (C)
Before they pioneered abolitionism they had some slaves in the empire, so now they have to take in an endless number of people who believe in suppressing women and persecuting non-believers.
She's not capable of reason.
Before they pioneered abolitionism they had some slaves in the empire, so now they have to take in an endless number of people who believe in suppressing women and persecuting non-believers.
She's not capable of reason.
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,740
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,743
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 4 months ago, 25 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,744
Anonymous D replied with this 4 months ago, 26 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,745
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,750
@1,314,743 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You have entirely failed to prove that there was slavery in Great Britain, and you have also failed to address the fact that Great Britain was 99% white until the 1960s.
You have entirely failed to prove that there was slavery in Great Britain, and you have also failed to address the fact that Great Britain was 99% white until the 1960s.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 months ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,753
@previous (C)
I don't dispute that it was white, do I have nothing to prove. It's still very ghostly there as well
I don't dispute that it was white, do I have nothing to prove. It's still very ghostly there as well
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,764
@1,314,750 (C)
Correction: white identifying. Identity is not biological fact.
Correction: white identifying. Identity is not biological fact.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 12 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,767
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 months ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,769
Anonymous C replied with this 4 months ago, 15 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,770
@1,314,753 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Your original comment:
> You can't spend hundreds of years shiping in slaves and breeding with them to turn around and act like blood means so much
Except now it has been proved that slaves weren't shipped in and bred with for hundreds of years. So try again.
Your original comment:
> You can't spend hundreds of years shiping in slaves and breeding with them to turn around and act like blood means so much
Except now it has been proved that slaves weren't shipped in and bred with for hundreds of years. So try again.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,314,772
@previous (C)
How were you able to prove that something didn't happen? That's like proving a negative. @OP said that is literally impossible.
How were you able to prove that something didn't happen? That's like proving a negative. @OP said that is literally impossible.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 months later, 2 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,326,919
Well well well, so it turns out Axel is a jihadist terrorist after all. (@1,313,836 (D) Anon D, you called it)
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05zpdq0lzgo
https://news.sky.com/story/southport-attack-murder-suspect-axel-rudakubana-in-court-over-ricin-and-al-qaeda-manual-charges-13244519
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/30/southport-suspect-axel-rudakubana-appears-in-court-on-new-charges
I wonder when those people who were accused and jailed for spreading "disinformation" are going to be pardoned and released.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05zpdq0lzgo
https://news.sky.com/story/southport-attack-murder-suspect-axel-rudakubana-in-court-over-ricin-and-al-qaeda-manual-charges-13244519
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/30/southport-suspect-axel-rudakubana-appears-in-court-on-new-charges
I wonder when those people who were accused and jailed for spreading "disinformation" are going to be pardoned and released.