Colonial History of India

[Husky]

The first part is not about India, but Africa.





1. independent.co.uk/news/uk/vast-scale-of-british-slave-ownership-revealed-10383768.html

Vast scale of British slave ownership revealed



46,000 Britons were slave owners on the day that slavery was abolished in 1833 and all received a share of a £17 billion compensation payout from the Government





Alexandra Sims



Sunday 12 July 2015



The shocking scale of British slave ownership has been revealed in scores of official records which have found that thousands of modern-day Britons are related to owners who received huge sums in compensation when the trade was abolished.



A five-year project by University College London has compiled the identities of 46,000 Britons who owned slaves, mainly in the West Indies, on the day slavery was abolished in 1833.



David Cameron, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ben Affleck and George Orwell are just some of the high profile descendants of the slave owners revealed in the files.

2. But it was already known two years ago:

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-colonial-shame-slaveowners-given-huge-payouts-after-abolition-8508358.html

Britain's colonial shame: Slave-owners given huge payouts after abolition



David Cameron's ancestors were among the wealthy families who received generous reparation payments that would be worth millions of pounds in today's money

Sanchez Manning



Sunday 24 February 2013

Bears noting that in typical Dinace D'Souza fashion (he who wrote 2 cheers for colonialism), African converts to christoislam also worked for the slave trade: selling heathen Africans to christoislamics.



web.archive.org/web/20120110163306/http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4b.htm#HistoryAfrica

Christian apologetics: Africans participated in the slave trade



This usually tends to be the final excuse given. Although certain African kingdoms most definitely did participate in selling slaves (capturing and selling people from rival or enemy kingdoms), it bears noting the names and religions of the African slave traders and kings. They tend to be either of the Christian or Moslem persuasion. An example would be the 16th century King Alfonso of the Congo, whose courtiers wore European dress. The kingdom's hierarchy was also changed to work like that of Portugal: with dukes, counts, etc. This shows that Africans had internalised European Christian ideas on slavery. After all, Portuguese missionaries had been sent to the Congo since the generation preceeding Alfonso's kingship, for the express purpose of converting their elite (thereby making the acquisition of African slaves easier for Christian Portugal).



(Shows the typical collusion by converts against native heathens.)



Eventually, a few unconverted African nations retaliated by returning the favour: in their turn, they sold people they captured from Christian-ruled Congo and Islamicised African lands. In the end, this rush to enslave enemy populations within Africa, was only to the benefit of the Arabian and European traders.

Today's African apologists - who attack only Christian slavery of Africans but remain silent on (or even defend!) the Islamic slave trade of Africans - tend to be Moslem, predictably. Neither of these religions are indigenous to Africans, and both were imposed by force. Today's African adherents of these two religions tend to suffer from ignorance or selective amnesia on the matter.

Anyway, in America, as per popular representation (on TV), "top secret" files are supposedly set to expire after a predetermined date: they can be made public after that time. The US estimates the expiry date to be that date when publication of the info is not deemed a threat to US interests: that indignation can do little harm or will be tempered by time (like the genocide of native Americans is now considered "so long ago" as to not matter to AmriKKKans and not their fault "any more").



Likewise with how the facts of the British mass ownership of African "slaves" above and other vile treatment of Africans during the colonial era is being made public now: the Brits today already feel so far removed, so the usual answer is "it's not something that those of us living today are responsible for". So the moratorium on revealing such data from British records is officially over: the British populace can no longer be shamed into hating their nations, and turning against it and working for others like a fifth column. No self-loathing - the way they have planted in India - can take root in the British isles let alone AmriKKKa.



Yet the same demons concoct lies about others having oppressed their own people (e.g. "casteism" and "brahminism" as the cause for it and the root of all evils), and then stoke up ungrounded indignation and violence on such false premises.



One day they will admit to those lies too. You know, the way the christowest has finally come clean about how it caused the Rwanda genocide. Much after the genocide.



Wonder whether Durant's The Case For India is now no longer banned in the UK? Probably. As the population is sufficiently apathetic to say "so what" to the huge scale of genocide of Indians listed in there.



Meanwhile, alien demons will insist that they're over it now and so should Africans, and E Asians and Indians be. They even argue so when any of these refuse to date said aliens.





Anyway, after slavery was abolished, the Brits renamed it and repeated it with Indians and Chinese:



striking-women.org/module/migration/history-migration#Indentured%20labour%20%281834-1917%29

Indentured labour (1834-1917)



When slavery ended, slaves working on plantations in British colonies were replaced with another form of bonded labour - indentured labour. Indentured labourers came primarily from India and China. From 1834 to the end of the First World War, Britain had transported about 2 million Indian indentured workers to 19 colonies including Fiji, Mauritious, Caribbean islands, parts of South America, Sri Lanka and South East Asia (Tinker, 1993). China was the next biggest source of indentured labourers who were transported to the Americas, Phillipines and the Caribbean islands.



Indentured workers were recruited by agents** who received financial incentives for each person they recruited. This led to fraudulent practices such as misrepresentation about the work, wages and most commonly, the distance of the colony the workers were being transported to, and through kidnapping and forcible transportation (especially in China). The harsh conditions on the journey to the colonies and the poor working conditions on the plantations meant that many indentured workers died during the period of bondage. Though the indentured labourers were free men and women bound by a labour contract, in reality, their situation was not unlike that of slaves before them.



[...]



(** Involvement of Indian christians here ought to be documented. Like during the era when the Portuguese were also kidnapping and selling Hindus as slaves to islamic Arabs etc. And like their kidnapping Hindu children from their parents today to put into christian "orphanages" and thereafter to be sold or even gifted to alien christo families in the west.

When Dinace D'Souza wrote his Two Cheers For Colonialism, he was cheering the kickbacks his own christo ancestors and other convert christos in India, Africa and Asia got from their colonial masters, for their help in forcing heathens into slavery and misery.

Portuguese employed converted African slaves to kidnap heathen Hindoos in Goa for conversion too.)

Never watched this, but:

documentarystorm.com/coolies-how-britain-reinvented-slavery/

Coolies: How Britain Reinvented Slavery

History, Modern Era

59 minutes 6.6/10



The slave trade was officially abolished throughout the British Empire in 1807. This documentary reveals one of Britain’s darkest secrets: a form of slavery that continued well into the 20th century – the story of Indian indentured labour.



Coolies: How Britain Reinvented Slavery tells the astonishing and controversial story of the systematic recruitment and migration of over a million Indians to all corners of the Empire. It is a chapter in colonial history that implicates figures at the very highest level of the British establishment and has defined the demographic shape of the modern world.

[...]

(Where's Leslie Udwin or whatever her name was?)



It even dares to interview some convert to christianism as if their opinion matters or counts as that of the actual victims, rather than probably facilitators or those who got double-crossed by their western masters. Those who are christoislamic deserved it: their adherence shows they in time elected christo aliens to be their masters.



Don't know why no one says it: but converts to christoislamania - be they Indian or African or any other ethnicity affected - have NO RIGHT to complain about "slavery" and "racism". As long as any are christoislamic (and communism is included in christianism particularly in India), and the minute any convert to christoislam, any right to their complaining about the 'injustice' from any personal POV is gone. They chose to join else to remain in the religions of racism and slavery, as is their choice, but their rights end there. And they're vile co-conspirators anyway: probably offspring of collaborators. And continuing apologists, like that catholic Dinace D'Souza.



Their identity - like that of King Alfonso of the Congo - is to be of the religion of slavetraders and slaveowners, of the religion that ever conspired in collusion with christoislamic aliens against the native heathens, against the latter's heathen identities and hence against the heathen nations.



Their continued adherence to christoislam is their pledge of their ongoing treachery. Traitors to the core.





The news (nothing new) was:

independent.co.uk/news/uk/vast-scale-of-british-slave-ownership-revealed-10383768.html

46,000 Britons were slave owners on the day that slavery was abolished in 1833 and all received a share of a £17 billion compensation payout from the Government

Sunday 12 July 2015