Drugb posted:Nonsense, the British saw little profit in Africa other than its slave labor. Africa was so backwards compared to the rest of the world that the continent with the exception of he north had very little to exploit. For you to belittle the accomplishments of the Gandhi is wicked and downright low.
Druggie silly man. Research ancient Timbuktu and we can get back to African "backwardness". When I was in school our history teacher gave us a translation of an account by a Dutch sailor who visited one of the Yoruba kingdoms. He was very impressed with the efficiency of the cities that he saw and their levels of cleanliness and the fact that they had systems to remove human waste. Note that these cities weren't much smaller than many in Europe. Peoples from this part of Africa were also skilled in metallurgy, and those in Ghana (Gold Coast) in gold smelting.
Guess which was the most valuable asset in the USA in 1860. SLAVES, and that is even after states like NY had already abolished slavery. Guess which were the richest colonies in the 18th century? Jamaica, Haiti, Barbados and Brazil. Note that none of these colonies functioned without slaves
So go cry druggie as another attempt by you to paint black worthlessness isn't working. Without slaves there is NO WAY that colonies in the Caribbean or Brazil would have been so wealthy. And given that they had to BUY these slaves from Africans this means that the available of slaves in West Africa was of great value to them.
Put it another way druggie, but for the Transatlantic slave trade you wouldn't be Guyanese. You would be starving in some village in Uttar Pradesh, squatting outside of your hut trying to have a bowel movement.