• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
steppensheep

Unmentioned history constantly being mentioned

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Long time lurking said:

I would go further every country writes it`s own history,i`m sure the Germans view of the reasons for the second world war are different to ours  

That's an interesting topic because Germany was occupied, governed and administered by the Allied forces for a long time after the end of WW2 and as far as I'm aware the Allies had some considerable influence on what was taught including the destruction of German nazism.  Did the Germans have much free rein for their own version. 

I agree if they were able to give their own reasons and version likely it would be very different but I suspect a lot of it was suppressed in education by the ruling Allies.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, twocents said:

That's an interesting topic because Germany was occupied, governed and administered by the Allied force or a long time after the end of WW2 and as far as I'm aware the allies had some considerable influence on what was taught including the destruction of German nazism.  Did the Germans have much free rein for their own version. 

I agree if they were able to give their own reasons and version likely it would be very different but I suspect a lot of it would be suppressed in education by the ruling Allies.

That was part of it but ultimately the Nazis were losers and no one wants to be associated with failure. Incidentally, that is why after the war all the German  Generals memoirs blame Hitler for the disasters on the Russian front even though the army high command was at least as culpable for some of the key mistakes particularly early in the war.  In fact at the start of operation Barbarossa they were far more concerned about capturing trophy cities such as Moscow and Leningrad than Hitler who wanted to seize the Baltic states and then cut off the USSRs access to Ukrainian raw materials and to oil from the Caucuses. The army had signed up to these objectives but then kept trying to switch the focus of the attack to Moscow even though the Napoleonic war had shown that such a 'decapitation' strike on Russia was unlikely to succeed.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Virgil Caine said:

That was part of it but ultimately the Nazis were losers and no one wants to be associated with failure. Incidentally, that is why after the war all the German  Generals memoirs blame Hitler for the disasters on the Russian front even though the army high command was at least as culpable for some of the key mistakes particularly early in the war.  In fact at the start of operation Barbarossa they were far more concerned about capturing trophy cities such as Moscow and Leningrad than Hitler who wanted to seize the Baltic states and then cut off the USSRs access to Ukrainian raw materials and to oil from the Caucuses. The army had signed up to these objectives but then kept trying to switch the focus of the attack to Moscow even though the Napoleonic war had shown that such a 'decapitation' strike on Russia was unlikely to succeed.

They did have some nice uniforms though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh, I'm not sure how much of the UK's wealth can be put down to our involvement in the slave trade. Places like Sweden were never really involved (?) in black slavery and they are equally wealthy to the UK. So it's hard to say that slavery made the UK rich.

Also this BBC Scotland programme says "every brick used in Scotland was due to Scotland's involvement in slavery". However slaves never built any buildings in Scotland. It's probably fair to say slavery made some Brits exceptionally rich and gave them the resources to build huge houses. However the craftsmen that built these houses would probably have built other things if the UK wasn't involved in slavery. 

I'd genuinely have a lot more respect for blacks if they campaigned against modern day slavery (which exists on a huge scale). However they continue to bang on and on about nasty whitey buying blacks from other blacks 200 years ago.

I refuse to feel guilty about slavery, that was stopped by Britain 200 years ago, that had nothing to do with me or my family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Great Guy said:

Tbh, I'm not sure how much of the UK's wealth can be put down to our involvement in the slave trade. Places like Sweden were never really involved (?) in black slavery and they are equally wealthy to the UK. So it's hard to say that slavery made the UK rich.

Also this BBC Scotland programme says "every brick used in Scotland was due to Scotland's involvement in slavery". However slaves never built any buildings in Scotland. It's probably fair to say slavery made some Brits exceptionally rich and gave them the resources to build huge houses. However the craftsmen that built these houses would probably have built other things if the UK wasn't involved in slavery. 

I'd genuinely have a lot more respect for blacks if they campaigned against modern day slavery (which exists on a huge scale). However they continue to bang on and on about nasty whitey buying blacks from other blacks 200 years ago.

I refuse to feel guilty about slavery, that was stopped by Britain 200 years ago, that had nothing to do with me or my family. 

I would agree with that. I think America has a bit of shame to unsweep from under the carpet. But maybe it's just time to let it all the bad feelings go, but to be remembered, as a warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, wherebee said:

Ten things not mentioned in history classes that I think should be:

i) The horror of Partition in India - rape and murder on a continental scale

ii) The muslim invasions of India and deaths therein

iii) Highland clearances

iv) Inter-tribal warfare in Australia and America before the whites came

v) Brutal suppression of workers in the USA 1950-1920 (including using army and live rounds against pro-worker right crowds)

vi) The white slave trade run by the Arabs for over 500 years

vii) The part of the slave trade that took blacks to the Middle East, and what happened to them

viii) The extermination of the pre-Maori human population in New Zealand by the Maori when they arrived

ix) Tesla

x) How close the USA was in WW1 from staying neutral, due to strong german populations in the NE and NNE

I would add the horror of the partition of Pakistan, the Armenian genocide and african tribal migration/ warfare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Great Guy said:

Tbh, I'm not sure how much of the UK's wealth can be put down to our involvement in the slave trade. Places like Sweden were never really involved (?) in black slavery and they are equally wealthy to the UK. So it's hard to say that slavery made the UK rich.

Also this BBC Scotland programme says "every brick used in Scotland was due to Scotland's involvement in slavery". However slaves never built any buildings in Scotland. It's probably fair to say slavery made some Brits exceptionally rich and gave them the resources to build huge houses. However the craftsmen that built these houses would probably have built other things if the UK wasn't involved in slavery. 

I'd genuinely have a lot more respect for blacks if they campaigned against modern day slavery (which exists on a huge scale). However they continue to bang on and on about nasty whitey buying blacks from other blacks 200 years ago.

I refuse to feel guilty about slavery, that was stopped by Britain 200 years ago, that had nothing to do with me or my family. 

I think you will find that the few did very nicely out of it even after it was abolished ,my money is on some of the very same people who received  compensation were the same people lending the government the money to pay them off 

 

 

Quote

Just three years ago, taxpayers were still paying off government debt borrowed to pay millions in 'compensation' to wealthy slave owners.

While some were well aware of the payments, which finally stopped in 2015, a lot of people had no idea modern Brits were paying off money the British Treasury gave to people made rich through human suffering.

The government pledged in 1833 £20 million in order to reimburse the owners of slaves when slavery was abolished in Britain. The sum, while big now, was monstrous in 1833, and it took the British taxpayer 182 years to pay off.

The information was revealed by the Treasury after a freedom of Information request, the Bristol Postreports. Bristol was known then as the 'slave capital' of Britain, due to the relative volume of owners in the port city. Only London had more. Exeter was also significant.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/taxpayers-still-paying-british-slave-12019829

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

I think you will find that the few did very nicely out of it even after it was abolished ,my money is on some of the very same people who received  compensation were the same people lending the government the money to pay them off 

 

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/taxpayers-still-paying-british-slave-12019829

Was not the Church of England one of the main beneficiaries. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you don't tend to hear when the transatlantic slave trade is discussed is the fact that the mortality rate on slave ships in the late 18th and early 19th centuries at about 15-16 % was often a good deal lower than on the coffin ships that took many poor European migrants to the Americas after  1800 where death rates up to 30% were not unknown. African slaves as goods to be sold were more valuable to ship owners than poor fare paying passengers from Britain or Ireland. About 12 million Africans were carried across the Middle Passage between the 16th and 19th Century but those numbers were dwarfed by European emigration in the 19th century when more than 60 million Europeans migrated across the Atlantic to America and to other parts of tbe globe.For example while much is made about Liverpools role in the Atlantic slave trade few realise that is was the single largest embarcation point for European emigrants with over 9 million people passing through it in the period 1830-1930.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Memorial for 13 Indian Muslim soldiers in the Cairngorm's on the Scottish BBC news. Apparently hitherto unrecognised contribution of Indian/Muslim soldiers in both wars. Reportedly calls (presumably from the So-Called BBC itself) for a permanent memorial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also half an hour of same on "timeline" (Scottish current affairs mag) together with a Sikh whose grandad got a vc. Would have been quite interesting except the interviewer kept randomly interrupting his story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steppensheep said:

Also half an hour of same on "timeline" (Scottish current affairs mag) together with a Sikh whose grandad got a vc. Would have been quite interesting except the interviewer kept randomly interrupting his story.

I like Sikhs. Fit in well and tend to be nice people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.