Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well the UK was very deeply involved in the transanatic slave trade and set up slave colonies in the Carribean and North America. Plus millions of Indians starved to death during the British rule a few years before India became independent. In addition the British set up concentration camps for the Boers or Dutch origin South Africans plus numerous blacks in South Africa at the turn of the 20th century, it did not go well as large amount of women and children died. Plus the Irish potato famine in Ireland in the 19th century could have been prevented, and Britian still exported food from Ireland during that time, despite a million Irish starved to death.
For the slave trade, yes, that’s indefensible. But the anti-slavery movement was also strong in the UK, and the UK banned slavery decades before the US did.
It was renamed the Commonwealth of Nations in 1949. India prompted the renaming, as it no longer wished to belong to the British Commonwealth.
I've worked with people from India...they really, really don't like the British.
There are millions of Indian ex-pats in the UK, also I've NEVER come across an Indian that 'dislikes' the British and I've known and worked with many. India IS still part of the Commonwealth.
For the slave trade, yes, that’s indefensible. But the anti-slavery movement was also strong in the UK, and the UK banned slavery decades before the US did.
Yes exactly, here is something to put it into context:-
Probably Roman empire. There was universal citizenship, and a line of North African emperors.
The Romans themselves would have been a numerical minority in the Empire but they were savvy enough to extend citizenship to nations they absorbed/conquered while spreading Roman administration and culture everywhere. There had to be a sense of benefit in gaining Roman citizenship among the common population in the far-flung provinces or it would not have worked well except by brute force (which they were not shy about using). The estimated population of the Empire was 70 million at 180 AD on the death of Marcus Aurelius. That number includes 10-20% who were slaves but there doesn't seem to be one single minority group that fell into slavery. People became slaves for a variety of reasons.
Genius Khan established freedom of religion in all of the lands he conquered including those parts of Europe he ruled. As long as he was recognized as head of government, religion wasn't important.
Compared to what came before him and after, Kaiser Franz Joseph, was a progressive. Jews were liberated in the Empire, whereas they were not in Russia and Germany; the various ethnic minorities were free to increasingly express themselves. Some ceased to exist after the fall of the empire. Bukovina was an administrative district in the empire, Ruthenian was the primary language; both are lost to history.
No, they would not be on the list. The French were probably the most brutal slave owners in the New World. They treated the Haitian slaves so horribly that their life expectancy was a mere 7 years due to the cruelty visited upon them by the French. They worked the slaves from sun-up to sundown, with no food. If they wanted something to eat, the slaves were expected to go and cultivate and farm their own plots of land & cook their own meals after laboring all day for the French. The French were monsters.
Then on top of that they had the nerve to demand crippling reparations from their former slaves, which in current money is in the billions and billions of dollars. These reparations were still going on well into the 20th century. Sending most of the country’s money to France for over 100 years crippled Haiti.
No, they would not be on the list. The French were probably the most brutal slave owners in the New World.
Give me a list of empires that (a) counted slaves as minority nationals; and (b) was kind and treated their slaves as actual people rather than property or beasts of burden.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
