Slavery isn't a legitimate form of contribution. Why in the world would someone want credit for being a slave?<quoted text>
No, you said that when generalizing populations, West-Central Africans have contributed little to the development of humanity.
I asked you how the tens of trillions of dollars made by WC African labor constitutes as "little".
How have not answered this.
That, sir, IS SICK.
Yes, it was. They were property. Do you know what slave means?<quoted text>
And I said the treatment of, use and desire for human slaves was neither the equivalent or the same as the treatment of, use and desire for domesticated animals.
You do agree that slavery was wrong, correct?<quoted text>
Industrial North was still profiting off the cotton of the slaves in the south were still producing, and so was England.
Even as late as the mid 1800s, Britain's "crown jewel" was the West Indies.
It is a shameful role sir. Not one which is respected nor deserving of respect.<quoted text>
The profits made by enslaved Africans, whether they were made directly by slavers, or indirectly from trade of slave produced materials, slaves still playing the central role throughout.
This is just flat out embarrassing.<quoted text>
The more major changes and development in Britain happened at the same period of time that the slave trade was at its peak and Britain was one of the countries most heavily involved. Britain also played the biggest role in the trade out of any other European country. It's like you want to make it seem like a coincidence that Britain was developing more rapidly as it gained more profits from the trade. The ports in Bristol and Liverpool became wealthy, more jobs were created, and individuals who became wealthy from the slave trade invested their money into the development of industries.
So much for little contribution.