Why aren't blacks angry at England, rather than the US over slavery?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

So given that the English, French, and Spanish were the nations that brought most black slaves to America, why not the anger directed toward those nations, rather than the US? The US banned the importation of slaves in 1807, thus the US was responsible for only a brief period of time (1783-1807) for importation of slaves.

People imported slaves into the US well after 1807.

Mobile Alabama takes great pride in having a black community founded by the last slaves to arrive in this country, and those slaves came in 1859.

So........................... all the hatred, venom, and "legacy" of slavery is for a 24 year period of brining slaves to the US. England, France, and Spain presided over nearly 200 years of this practice, yet are given a "pass" by black America.

technically, England stopped allowing slave trade in 1717, It was people getting rich in the US that allowed it to continue, so even in your wildest argument, its still a long time of slavery by US officials, regardless of previous British allowing of the act.

In addition, those who sold blacks into slavery in the first place were Africans and Arabs, yet one never hears a peep about their role in the slave trade.

Of course, and white people enslaved each other as well. Not sure what your point is as the repercussions of such an act have to do with the US, not those chiefs in africa.

What gives? The nation that ultimately freed the slaves, the US, is vilified by black America, while England, France, Spain, Africa and the Arabs are completely ignored. Even the Dutch and Portugese played a greater role in the slave trade than the US, but are never mentioned at all.

Slave trade =/= American treatment of black people.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by KodeBlue

I know this. What I'm getting you to acknowledge is that there were 90 years after that, in which white Americans weren't under British rule, before the Emancipation. Generations of slaves were still held captive. White American slave owners decided not to release slaves, Why?

Edit: You're exaggerating a good deal. No, white people in America weren't slaves to whites in Britain, they were Taxed.

America had fairly low levels of tax, and taxation was far lower than in Britain.

What we get wrong about taxes and the American Revolution - PBS

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

America had fairly low levels of tax, and taxation was far lower than in Britain.

What we get wrong about taxes and the American Revolution - PBS

Yes, but they had no say in your government. Remember?

PBS as a source???? Please. Not necessarily saying it is wrong here, but they always spin to the Left or just give leftist disinformation.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Yes, but they had no say in your government. Remember?

PBS as a source???? Please. Not necessarily saying it is wrong here, but they always spin to the Left or just give leftist disinformation.

The UK had a debate regarding representation, although Britain generally let overseas trading countries of Empire have a good deal of self rule.

As for PBS it's spot on, the UK had higher taxes than the US, which had relatively low taxes, although the US didn't even want to pay these taxes.

The UK never had a big Army, and as already pointed out never had more than 70,000 in India, a country of over 400 million at the time. In terms of the US the UK had an army of 30,000 of which over a third were foreign troops.

The UK just used a lot of Hessian mercenaries in the war of independence, and generally ruled by allowing those in charge of countries to have a good deal of control and to make a significant profit through trade. Local leaders often had their own armies that kept order and Britain generally oversaw things from a distance.

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

The UK had a debate regarding representation, although Britain generally let overseas trading countries of Empire have a good deal of self rule.

Debate? How about clear government abuse with no ability to be a part of the debate? That was the genesis for Independence.

As for PBS it's spot on, the UK had higher taxes than the US, which had relatively low taxes, although the US didn't even want to pay these taxes.

Again, it is well known PBS is very left leaning. I don't care how LOW the taxes were comparatively. They Colonies got no representation nor say for paying all those taxes. Who represented them in Commons or Lords? Nobody.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Debate? How about clear government abuse with no ability to be a part of the debate? That was the genesis for Independence.



Again, it is well known PBS is very left leaning. I don't care how LOW the taxes were comparatively. They Colonies got no representation nor say for paying all those taxes. Who represented them in Commons or Lords? Nobody.

PBS is telling the truth, taxes were not high in the US and were a lot less than in the UK itself.

The US like other parts of Empire generally ran itself, the British Empire being mainly interested in trade rather than anything else.