quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
And there was a damn good reason for that -- at that point in history, the only chance for the ending of slavery anywhere was the survival of the US, a unique experiment in history. .

Of course by 1865 the British, the French,the Dutch, the Danes, and almost all Latin nations excpt Brazil (Cuba was still a colony) had abolished slavery. In fact by 1865 only Cuba, Brazil, and maybe Puerto Rico still had slavery.

I gather that you dont read history books.

quote:

Originally posted by Wally:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
Actually, in those days, the Republicans were anti-slavery and the Democrats were for it.

The KKK was the militant wing of the Democratic party. It was only in 1964 after the passing of the Civil rights act by Johnson that racist Southerners went over to the Republican party.

When George Bush Sr first ran as a congress man in Texas for the Republican party the KKK told him that they will chop his head off. In those days the KKK were strong democrats in the South and would harm anyone who voted Republican in the American south.

The Republicans werent the choir boys you pretend them to be. Barry Goldwater wasa fervent segregationist and indeed the Democratic party had begun a switch under JFK and LBJ.

The Republican party welcomed all the Dixiecrat bigots with open arms. Nixon loved them and Reagan had orgasms over their presence in the GOP.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by seignet:
Do u ppl know how many cotton plantations failed in Demerara and Berbice by 1834. Tariff killed the industry because American cotton was preferred in Britain.

The British wanted free trade. The sugar industry in their colonies also did poorly because it couldnt compete against slave grown sugar from Cuba and Brazil and German beet sugar.

Does that mean that the British preferred Brazilian and Cuban slave holders over British plantation owners.

No its becasue they preferred free trade, because as the dominant industrial and commercial power free trade guaranteed them access to markets globally. Hence the fact that Britain dominated countries like Argentina even though it was never a colony of theirs.

"Free trade" has for some centuries been the official ideology of the Empire, and has in fact become the modern version of colonialism. Smaller countries are prohibited from defending themselves against predatory tactics.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
"Free trade" has for some centuries been the official ideology of the Empire, and has in fact become the modern version of colonialism. Smaller countries are prohibited from defending themselves against predatory tactics.

Those who control the global economy advocate free trade because they know that if weaker nations cannot protect their producers they will dominate.

The British advocated free trade. They didnt care one whit for their colonial producers and sacrificed them to gain access to markets in the USA and in Latin America and Asia. Plus it guaranteed their industrialists access to the cheapest inputs. So why should British West Indian sugar be protected if Cuban, Brazilian, or German sugar was cheaper? Even more so its cotton producers, who by them were a non factor given the ready availability of US, Egyptian and Indian cotton.

This was what dominated their thinking in the 19th century. Not your silly nonsense about maintaining slavery in the USA.

List some countries in Africa that are as stable and prosperous as those in the Caribbean.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:
Those who control the global economy advocate free trade because they know that if weaker nations cannot protect their producers they will dominate.

The British advocated free trade. They didnt care one whit for their colonial producers and sacrificed them to gain access to markets in the USA and in Latin America and Asia. Plus it guaranteed their industrialists access to the cheapest inputs. So why should British West Indian sugar be protected if Cuban, Brazilian, or German sugar was cheaper? Even more so its cotton producers, who by them were a non factor given the ready availability of US, Egyptian and Indian cotton.

This was what dominated their thinking in the 19th century. Not your silly nonsense about maintaining slavery in the USA.

Evidently you neglected to read my post before proclaiming your opinion about it. I didn't say that the Brits were trying to break up the US in order to maintain slavery (although that may have been a secondary objective.) I said their objective was to wreck the US before the American System of national economic sovereignty, in opposition to "Free Trade," could spread to the rest of the world. And implicitly, they wished to re-colonize it after wrecking it.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
I said their objective was to wreck the US before the American System of national economic sovereignty, in opposition to "Free Trade," t.

And as wee saw the USA adopted the free trade mantra as soon as it suited them. Plus Britain had their hands full colonizing Africa and maintaining control over India to attach a new colony. They had control over South America without firing one bullet and indeed exercised similar control over BOTH parts of the USA.

I dont think Britain sweated bullets over the USA being a role model for any one given that in this period they were a super power challenged by none.


BTW if a country to economically colonize another w/o the expense of administering it why will they want to directly colonize it. A South USA was not of interest to Britain, except as a supplier of cheap cotton. Much of which was also sent up North to NY, Boston and elsewhere to their textile mills.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
the only chance for the ending of slavery anywhere was the survival of the US, a unique experiment in history. .

With only Cuba and Brazil left as major slave states aside from the USA what rant are you pushingt here? If you claim that you didnt mean that slavery was the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by kidmost:
Republicans were so pi55ed off with Abe supporting and bringing about abolition that they put his a55 on a penny as punishment .

Along with the words, "IN GOD WE TRUST" etched over his head. The man had a conscience.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
the only chance for the ending of slavery anywhere was the survival of the US, a unique experiment in history. .

With only Cuba and Brazil left as major slave states aside from the USA what rant are you pushingt here? If you claim that you didnt mean that slavery was the issue.

African Slave Trade ceased in 1817, by an act of the British Parliament. The Bill became legislation under the sponsorship of William Wilberforce.

The Dutch only supplied slaves to non-British Colonies. In 1827, British Frigates sailed to the West Coast of Africa and blew up the Dutch Factories(places where slaves were kept for exportation)

Slavery only continued with those who were already in the system in America and the colonies of Spain and Portugal.

quote:

Originally posted by seignet:
The Dutch only supplied slaves to non-British Colonies. In 1827, British Frigates sailed to the West Coast of Africa and blew up the Dutch Factories(places where slaves were kept for exportation)

It's true that the British blew up those slave collection places, but it was not because of the abolition of slavery. There was a good program on African Kingdoms on the BBC last, where the reason for the British attacks were discussed. It was most interesting to me that European history writers tend to put things into words for future generation that make the former colonialists come up smelling of roses.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

Let me list all those black islands that INDOGuyanese flee to as they seek to escape their INDO run Guyana.

Barbados, Grenada, Nevis, St Lucia, Antigua, St Kitts.

They even fled to Trinidad when it was run by the PNM!!!!!!!

Thank God those black govt created a haven for Indos to flee to.

The population of those Islands may be Black but the people with the wealth and controlling the economy are Whites and other nationals primarily investing in the tourist industry. The Blacks would be eating dirt if not for the foreign investors. hahahhaha

quote:

Originally posted by seignet:
African Slave Trade ceased in 1817, by an act of the British Parliament. The Bill became legislation under the sponsorship of William Wilberforce.

The Dutch only supplied slaves to non-British Colonies. In 1827, British Frigates sailed to the West Coast of Africa and blew up the Dutch Factories(places where slaves were kept for exportation)

Slavery only continued with those who were already in the system in America and the colonies of Spain and Portugal.

yes please let Henry know this. The British for their own reasons which have nothing to do with altruism fought to end slavery.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
The population of those Islands may be Black but the people with the wealth and controlling the economy are Whites and other nationals primarily investing in the tourist industry. The Blacks would be eating dirt if not for the foreign investors. hahahhaha

So how come thes ewhite folks arent in haiti? Maybe the blacks in those islands run their countries properly and make them attractive to foreign investors. And thanks to this Indos can vote PPP and then flee from the consequences of this and avoid eating dirt in Guyana.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

So how come thes ewhite folks arent in haiti? Maybe the blacks in those islands run their countries properly and make them attractive to foreign investors. And thanks to this Indos can vote PPP and then flee from the consequences of this and avoid eating dirt in Guyana.

Haitian Blacks are a different animal, they were the first to have freedom and developed arrogance. Subsequently the country has a very unstable political climate with warring parties. The Blacks in the Islands were docile because of the white slave owners whip and waited until they were given freedom by the British crown,. In fact most of them did not even want to be freed from Britain. Guyana, like Haiti has aggressive Blacks, the descendants of Cuffy, so violence and unrest are in their nature.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
I said their objective was to wreck the US before the American System of national economic sovereignty, in opposition to "Free Trade," t.

And as wee saw the USA adopted the free trade mantra as soon as it suited them.

Baloney. The entire history of the US has been a battle between those who supported the American Revolution, and those who opposed it. The revolution was not unanimous, and a pro-British faction persists to this day, typified by the Confderacy, Wall Street, the NeoCons, etc. With the death of FDR, the pro-Brits began to seize control, and with the assassination of JFK, they pretty much took over. So we got the Free Traders/Free Traitors, the deregulators/Wall Street casino operators, and of course, the war-mongers. Obama is going for the trifecta on this stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by seignet:
African Slave Trade ceased in 1817, by an act of the British Parliament. The Bill became legislation under the sponsorship of William Wilberforce.

The Dutch only supplied slaves to non-British Colonies. In 1827, British Frigates sailed to the West Coast of Africa and blew up the Dutch Factories(places where slaves were kept for exportation)

Slavery only continued with those who were already in the system in America and the colonies of Spain and Portugal.

yes please let Henry know this. The British for their own reasons which have nothing to do with altruism fought to end slavery.

They out-sourced it. Also, they developed more sophisticated means of enslaving people, generally involving finance.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:

Haitian Blacks are a different animal, they were the first to have freedom and developed arrogance. Subsequently the country has a very unstable political climate with warring parties. The Blacks in the Islands were docile because of the white slave owners whip and waited until they were given freedom by the British crown,. In fact most of them did not even want to be freed from Britain. Guyana, like Haiti has aggressive Blacks, the descendants of Cuffy, so violence and unrest are in their nature.

These are disturbingly racist views.

I believe that Rev Al (unlike Albert) maybe an ideological racist with deep racist views but at least he keeps it hidden in public. These views by BGurd_See are offensive and expressed in public openly.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:

Haitian Blacks are a different animal, they were the first to have freedom and developed arrogance. Subsequently the country has a very unstable political climate with warring parties. The Blacks in the Islands were docile because of the white slave owners whip and waited until they were given freedom by the British crown,. In fact most of them did not even want to be freed from Britain. Guyana, like Haiti has aggressive Blacks, the descendants of Cuffy, so violence and unrest are in their nature.

These are disturbingly racist views.

No, these are deeply analytically views, its what you really thing but are hesitant to say because of political correctness. ahahahhaahah

quote:

Originally posted by Prashad:
I believe that Rev Al (unlike Albert) maybe an ideological racist with deep racist views but at least he keeps it hidden in public. These views by BGurd_See are offensive and expressed in public openly.

Why are my views offensive?? These are conclusions that I drew based on valid observations. The Blacks in Guyana are very aggressive, they partake in mo fiah slow fiah, murder and rape of the Indian. Is this not true? Then the PPP gave them milk but yet they voted PNC. ahhahaha

quote:

BGurd_See

Don't generalize blacks BGurd_See. That can lead to racism. Not all blacks in Guyana are aggressive. Remember all of Cheddi Jagan's closest personal friends were black.

I say let the insecure dalit bray all he wants.

He’s little more than a pathological attention seeker flaunting dark antiman obsessions with Black people . . .

One can only speculate what the sad, miserable life of this truly ignorant cockroach would be like if he didn’t have GNI as an outlet . . .

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
. Guyana, like Haiti has aggressive Blacks, the descendants of Cuffy, so violence and unrest are in their nature.

I see you know nothing about Caribbean history so dont know about the maroons of Jamaica, or understand that revolts on tiny islands like Barbados was difficult as there was no where for the rebels to hide. In any case barbados did have slave revolts, despite this. As did almost all of these islands.


I guess you dont know that islanders consider Guyanese blacks docile because they tolerate dabuse from Burnham 30 years ago, and now tolerate teh same from Indians.


Boukman the person who starte dthe Haitian revolt was a Jamaican. Christophe, who played a mjor role in this was said to be from either Grenada or St Kitts.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:

Haitian Blacks are a different animal, they were the first to have freedom and developed arrogance. Subsequently the country has a very unstable political climate with warring parties. The Blacks in the Islands were docile because of the white slave owners whip and waited until they were given freedom by the British crown,. In fact most of them did not even want to be freed from Britain. Guyana, like Haiti has aggressive Blacks, the descendants of Cuffy, so violence and unrest are in their nature.

These are disturbingly racist views.

Druggie cant help it as he is a black hating racist.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
, and a pro-British faction persists to this day, typified by the Confderacy, Wall Street, the NeoCons, etc. .

Now I know you are a lunatic. You really think that the "All American" xenophobes from the military industrial complex, people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc are tools of the British.


Tell me how does, Britain, a country ignored by the like sof Estonia, exert so much power of a mighty nations like the USA? What do they ahve that Cheney and others want? The UK is the 51st state of the USA. When the USA tells them jump the British so how high. Look at Tony Blair who played footsie with Bush and was always wagging his tail eager for orders.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
. The Blacks in Guyana are very aggressive,

You know whats funny. Both AfroGuyanese and Black islanders consider AfroGuyanese to be very docile compared to most black islanders. Do you think Burnham could have pulled off his nonsense any where in the Caribbean. NO WAY!!!

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
. The Blacks in Guyana are very aggressive,

You know whats funny. Both AfroGuyanese and Black islanders consider AfroGuyanese to be very docile compared to most black islanders. Do you think Burnham could have pulled off his nonsense any where in the Caribbean. NO WAY!!!

You supported Burnham's nonsense. Burnham got the approval of the black leaders of the caribbean before he started t0 rigged the elctions, eg, Eric williams passed a bill allowing blacks to vote in the Guyana elections.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:
Tell me how does, Britain, a country ignored by the like sof Estonia, exert so much power of a mighty nations like the USA? What do they ahve that Cheney and others want?

1. How do they exert so much power of a mighty nations like the USA? First of all, it's not the country that is exerting control. It's the empire, which is essentially a mammoth multinational corporation specializing in finance, media and raw materials. For example, they have systematically bought up the US news and entertainment media. One of the most glaring examples is Murdoch-owned Fox News (Murdoch is technically an Aussie, but his loyalty is to the Empire.) There has also been a systematic subversion of the US system of higher education, through programs like the Rhodes Scholarships. But most importantly, as I attempted to explain earlier, they don't have to exert control from the outside, because since day one there has been a pro-British "5th column" in the US political establishment. Bill Clinton's mentor, Carroll Quigley, understood this very well, and wrote a long book about it called "Tragedy and Hope."
2. What do they have that Cheney and others want? Well, they built the largest and most sophisticated empire in the history of empires. Cheney reveres them.

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:
Look at Tony Blair who played footsie with Bush and was always wagging his tail eager for orders.

Stupidness. Blair came to Bush with his "dodgy dossier" on Iraqi WMD, and Bush obediently launched a war. Similarly, when Bush's daddy was reluctant to attack Iraq in 1991, Margaret Thatcher flew over to "stiffen his resolve" (her words,) and the rest is history.

quote:

Originally posted by Prashad:

quote:

BGurd_See

Don't generalize blacks BGurd_See. That can lead to racism. Not all blacks in Guyana are aggressive. Remember all of Cheddi Jagan's closest personal friends were black.

Indeed some Blacks are of good heart, however these are few and far in between . In the final analysis, they take the PPP milk and stab them in the back when it comes to crunch time. They would rather drink black tea and eat rice bread as long as it is fed by their their own race. ahahahha

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:


You know whats funny. Both AfroGuyanese and Black islanders consider AfroGuyanese to be very docile compared to most black islanders. Do you think Burnham could have pulled off his nonsense any where in the Caribbean. NO WAY!!!

This is not true, even Dave Martin made up a song about Choke and Rob when he listed one of the traits of Black Guyanese.

Back Guyanese go to the Islands and rob people, this is a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
Indeed some Blacks are of good heart, however these are few and far in between . In the final analysis, they take the PPP milk and stab them in the back when it comes to crunch time. They would rather drink black tea and eat rice bread as long as it is fed by their their own race. ahahahha

Where do you live, Saskatchewan maybe?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.T:

quote:

Originally posted by Sunil:
Near the beginning of the war, President Lincoln was trying to come up with a way to buy slaves and then deport them to the British South American colonies of Belize and Guyana.

Utter rubbish. Guyana did not exist before 1966, which was at least 100 years after Lincoln is alleged to have considered sending anyone to a then non-existing country.

Mr. T the original text said Guyana, which was a British colony at the time

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by Nuff:
Abe Lincoln's involvement in the Civil war had nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with stopping the south seceding from the union.

Simple-minded, and certainly doesn't explain the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Contrary to the present day fad for cynicism about political leaders, Lincoln was a great human being. Just because we haven't had a good president in the US for so many years doesn't mean it's not possible.

Henry,

You are more crazy than I thought. Are you trying ti falsefy history

Nuff is correct, Lincoln only wanted to keep the union together. He did not love slaves. In his debate with Douglass{not Frederick} he made it very clear that he would not give "negroes" the right to vote, be jurors and inter marry with whites. And the white race must always be superior to the "negroes"

He also approved the mass execution of native americans{39} in Minnesota. He had no love for non whites.

Also, the emancipation proclamation did not free the slave. This document was meaningless since it was written during the civil war. At the time no one knew which side would win the war.

It was the 13th amendment that ofically freed the slaves

Therefore, re-think Lincoln being a "great human being"

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
Indeed some Blacks are of good heart, however these are few and far in between . In the final analysis, they take the PPP milk and stab them in the back when it comes to crunch time. They would rather drink black tea and eat rice bread as long as it is fed by their their own race. ahahahha

Where do you live, Saskatchewan maybe?

And what about yourself, you live in the land of fairy tales where Guyanese Blacks are angels and don't burn and loot?

If BGurd_See is truely living in Saskatchewan then these racist statements are grounds for him to be sanctioned by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

Those people do not joke around when it comes to race.

Prash, don't tek worries, you and Hen are not alone, there are a few Indians like you two who want to be ruled by the Black man. Maybe you have a liking for their big bigan. hahahahahah

Who says I'm an Indian?

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
Prash, don't tek worries, you and Hen are not alone, there are a few Indians like you two who want to be ruled by the Black man. Maybe you have a liking for their big bigan. hahahahahah

Black man "big baigan" really occupying a sacred place in your daytime (and nighttime) antiman reveries, eh bai . . .

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
Prash, don't tek worries, you and Hen are not alone, there are a few Indians like you two who want to be ruled by the Black man. Maybe you have a liking for their big bigan. hahahahahah

Black man "big baigan" really occupying a sacred place in your daytime (and nighttime) antiman reveries, eh bai . . .

Who the cap fit draw the string. I see you are one of those aforementioned. hahahaha