caribny posted:

As were your ancestors in India so stupid that they fell for a trick that had them spend months on a boat, many dying and then to be treated scarcely better than slaves at the end of the trip.   May dying there too.  They even lived in the same dwellings that the slaves abandoned when they left the plantation.  And yes that whip was sometimes used.

An Indian like you  talking calling black people docile is a joke given that your national anthem "black man a kill ahbe".

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

Even the article by Henry Gates proves my point. Out of almost 4 million slaves, this is just a handful of rebellions in ratio.  You can get away with almost anything with uneducated people, so I have to dumb down my writings when conversing with some.  

As an inhabitant of Georgetown you know of the Cuffy statue. In fact in 1763 the slaves almost drove the Dutch out of Berbice.  There were many other slave rebellions in Guyana and in fact the one in 1823 was partially responsible for the British finally abandoning slavery. 

Constantly spending money to put down slave rebellions, especially in Jamaica and Guyana, proved to be no longer worth it as their Caribbean colonies began to be less valuable.   Turns out that abusing Indians was more profitable for the British Empire.

Read and weep why the british abandoned slavery. They no longer needed slaves as economic interest changed. 

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 You can get away with almost anything with uneducated people, so I have to dumb down my writings when conversing with some.  

Druggie the only uneducated people here are you and the rest of the Indo KKK gang.  The rest of us, including PPP supporters who aren't part of the Indo KKK, are more educated.

The only education that you and others received was at my hands over years. They schooling I gave you must amount to 100's of thousands of US dollars. 

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

Drugb posted:

Bannas, them slaves were mostly docile and 100's of yall were controlled by 1 white  overseer with  a whip. The 1 and 2 that behave bad were castrated as lesson to the others. I suggest you watch roots and learn how Kunta Kinte chose amputation to castration just so he could carry on the bloodline.  Others were not so fortunate to be given that choice. 

The ignorance of this black skin Dalit progeny of teefmen. For over 200 years the white man beat alyuh rass wid de whip and rule alyuh in India. Over 35 million Indians died and by the time the white man left in 1947 India was a shit nation, reduced to rubble after being a once great civilization. Talk about "docile".

I take no joy in saying this nor mean no disrespect to Indians. I mention it only to educate yuh dumb Dalit ass. Yuh live in a glass house fool! 

Your obsession with black man private parts, slavery, rape and castration is noted. The slave masters were likewise obsessed with it, insomuch that unable to service their wives, they allowed slaves to do it for them. Might this be the reason for your frustration and frequent trips to Newark?

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

That wasn't me.

Drugb posted:

 

Read and weep why the british abandoned slavery. They no longer needed slaves as economic interest changed. 

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html

They added up the costs of continuing slavery and putting down endless slave rebellions made it no longer worth it. Sugar was no longer profitable for them. They could well have saved the millions of pounds that they used to compensate the former slave owners by simply abandoning them. But they didn't.

Exploiting your ancestors and forcing them into famines was more to their liking.  Druggie your need to fool yourself that Indians are superior to blacks is one of the most hilarious aspects of your stupidity.  Given the histories of both Guyanese groups, and the fact that most now live in various stages of poverty, such discussion is senseless.

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

That wasn't me.

And you screaming about beating Nuff in a race.  That wasn't you either?  Listen take that to Iguana or some other newbie who doesn't know your history.

Drugb posted:

 

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

The sad thing is you do not read. Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard. Most whites did not know what was inland until late in the 19th century. This was a development trap.

Slaves were brought to the cost by non white traders.  White folks hardly went inland or cared to go.

The decline of the British empire was not as simplistic as Gandhi did it. You are truly living in your own reality.

Drugb posted:

caribny posted:

Drugb posted:

 

How you know I am Indian? Did I make such a claim?  

 

You like to show your face on GNI. Yes that time when you swam in the sewerage drain that is the Demerara River.  No wonder you are even more brain damaged than you used to be.

That wasn't me.

Dude, I guess the Demerara river water with its assortment of human excrement affected your brain. 

Drugb posted:

How you know I am Indian?

https://guyana.crowdstack.io/topic/d...our-attention?page=2

Drugb Senior Member

3/24/172:31 PM

Nonsense, I met Andre in the flesh and gave my full name to all, including Mara, Nuff, BK and Andre. That was the event when I shut that loud mouth Daivid Blue, he swallowed his words that no Indo can beat him in a race.  

Goads da runner..

...hahahahahaha....... just as I thought..... he is a Dalit. In fact he looks like a black man. Oh the torture this Dalit must go through when he looks in a mirror.  LMAO.

cain posted:

Goads da runner..

he used to train the neighborhood rice eaters. They chase he run on them spindly legs. 

D2 posted:

Drugb posted:

 

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

The sad thing is you do not read. Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard. Most whites did not know what was inland until late in the 19th century. This was a development trap.

Slaves were brought to the cost by non white traders.  White folks hardly went inland or cared to go.

The decline of the British empire was not as simplistic as Gandhi did it. You are truly living in your own reality.

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.

Drugb posted:

D2 posted:

Drugb posted:

 

They Indos gave the english some of the roughest fights ever. The Blacks in comparison were not even worth their while to occupy their lands as there was nothing to plunder other than slaves.  In fact you will recall that the great Mahatma was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the british empire and forced it to give independence to its colonies. 

The sad thing is you do not read. Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard. Most whites did not know what was inland until late in the 19th century. This was a development trap.

Slaves were brought to the cost by non white traders.  White folks hardly went inland or cared to go.

The decline of the British empire was not as simplistic as Gandhi did it. You are truly living in your own reality.

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.

If you do not read and are given to useless pontification I cannot help. I give you the reason why the British saw little profit in Africa hence it remained largely unknown to them for a long time. It was highly inaccessible from the coast with ships and demanded long trek with pack animals .  Obviously is bound bountiful since they fought tooth and nail to keep it their share of it. Gandhi is irrelevant to the discussion since he is an artifact of the 20th century and long after slavery was gone.

D2 posted:

If you do not read and are given to useless pontification I cannot help. I give you the reason why the British saw little profit in Africa hence it remained largely unknown to them for a long time. It was highly inaccessible from the coast with ships and demanded long trek with pack animals .  Obviously is bound bountiful since they fought tooth and nail to keep it their share of it. Gandhi is irrelevant to the discussion since he is an artifact of the 20th century and long after slavery was gone.

Nonsense, inland trek did not stop the occupation of south america by the Europeans once they discovered that there was profit to be gained. 

D2 posted:

 Africa was not explored farther up from the coast by whites for centuries because the rivers are fast flowing and drop to the sea rapidly making travel inland seasonal and very hard.

Not true.  The River Niger is navigable at considerable distances from the coast, as are several other rivers.  West Africa is mainly low lying in the near coastal regions in most instances.  The mountains of Nigeria and Ghana, two of the largest suppliers of enslaved peoples, are well inland.

The truth is that the African kingdoms were too powerful, and combined with susceptibility to tropical diseases and the high humidity battling these empires wouldn't have been possible.  The Africans had immunity to various European diseases, so didn't collapse in the way that the various Amerindian empires of Mexico and South America did when the locals died from diseases brought in by the Spanish.

The wealth generated by slaves in the Americas and the importance of this slavery to continue to generate such wealth was such that if it was possible for the Europeans to reduce the cost of slave acquisition from African traders they would have done so.

Silly druggie is too unintelligent and ignorant to know that in the late 17th century and the early 18th Jamaica generated more wealth than did all of the British colonies in North America. And that Martinique generated more than did Quebec.  And of course Ste Domingue (Haiti) was even wealthier than these.

I will watch him run to Wikipedia to post an article that undermines his argument simply because he cannot understand it.

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.

Drugb posted:

.

Nonsense, inland trek did not stop the occupation of south america by the Europeans once they discovered that there was profit to be gained. 

Yes when history was taught those Portuguese boys were beating you up.  So brain damaged as you were then, and are today you missed the part about the fact that it was European diseases which led to the collapse of the Inca and Aztec empires.

West Africans had contact with European microbes as they had contact with that region via the Trans Sahara trade. In terms of diseases they had an advantage in that a measles didn't kill them as it did the Amerindians, but malaria certainly killed the northern Europeans.