Quote:
Originally Posted by crucifissio
270 mil? those are rookie numbers...lets just look at the brits:
10 million - UK ships carrying slaves 245 years
100million - north american indians
100million - india (most were starved to death)
40million - british opium trade enforced by the military in china
==========
250million and I mentioned only the americas and india...I did not even mention africa and the 100-s of other british colonies  I would be willing to bet that the results look the same 
dude thats just britan...what about the other colonialists? |
OK now let's take a look at just one example - these "100 mil." figure for North American Indians - this is the highest possible estimate that ever appeared for a total historical population of Northern American Indians. There's very limited evidence that there even EVER existed 100 mil. Indians all together.
For comparison - the whole continent of Africa which is huge, fertile land known for its chaotic mating habits had a total population of 100 mil. at the start of the 20th century. One hundred years after the British Empire, as the first in the world, abolished the slave trade.
The more conservative estimation for American Indians is 3 - 18 million, where different tribes were fighting among each other ruthlessly before any settlers ever appeared on the scene. While most of which later perished to disease (small pox and other European diseases) as opposed to actual warfare. This is just to illustrate an example where facts and history again get in the way of the heavily popular anti-White sentiment.
But let's not even argue the casualties of former colonialism, there's something more fascinating here.
If the legacy of former colonialism equals ethnic propensity to "violence" using today's entirely insane mainstream anti-White SJW logic - then I equally can't think of a more cruel treatment than to force or even allow all these non-whites to share a territory with those wicked people of European origin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucifissio
anyway, islam = religion of peace....simply because the white man is much much much more violent...
|
Don't get confused, as mentioned above, one can hate on White people in the case of Islam too, since the original founders of Islam were ethnically white (Mohammad even owned black slaves). These were some of the most brutal warlords and slave traders in the history. The shock and awe tactics employed by the Caliphs in the offensive Jihad and overseeing their territories is comparable, if not triumphant to those of Mongols or other famed savage forces.
And of course It's a given that 1 400 years of history true to a certain universal, final and "perfect", never modified doctrine, calling Muslims the "best of people" and non Muslims "the worst of creatures", dividing the world among dar-al-Islam ("land of Islam") and dar-al-Harb ("land of war"). Calling for violent and non violent Jihad and subjugation of the whole world proves it is an entirely peaceful ideology. After all, "salam" aka "peace", according to the doctrine of Islam, is defined as possible only once the rule of Islam is universal worldwide.
Not only that, it is a peaceful ideology since, remind me what the logic is, it does not come from Whites?? (false, its founders were white and the original Arabs always held in a higher ethnical regard).