generoso previously said:


I read while visiting the area, that in the year 1520 when the first Spaniards arrived by ship, to what is now Charleston, South Carolina, they brought dozens of Taino indians, from Hispaniola, chosen for their strength and good appearance, to trade as slaves, and then these became part of the local indian community?
Can anyone confirm this?

Lautaro previously said:



It was actually the other way around, that is, that expedition was made in order to capture Amerinds from the continent and the Bahamas in order to bring them to Hispaniola to make up for the latter's labor shortage. Later on, they would establish a colony there called San Miguel de Gualdape, but as it would happen with the majority of the colonies established by the Spaniards on that part of America (except for Florida and the Southwestern outpost) it would end up being a disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Miguel_de_Gualdape

Ricardolito previously said:

cibaeno 75 ..I am sure you do not really beieve that it was British policy to introduce a famine every 2 years instead of about 2 or 3 times a century ,,and I am sure you not believe that the East India Company was interested in collecting taxes ..it was a trading company concentrating on commodities .with the main base in Madras ..their head office is still there ,,The British tried to unite India by buying out the Rajahs and Mararajas and in the case of the Moslems the Nawabs to stop all the fighting between the states....It was Britain that unified India
You began by accusing the British of genocidal policies that killed millions ,,,most definitely it was the proper administration of a huge country that saved millions
If you just visit India you still see the enormous legacy of British administraion in the railways, the courts and the communications . the irrigations systems as well as all the sporting venues that were put in place ..But way off the subject of aboriginees in Australia

RoyStone previously said:


Can you please provide the name of just one genuine "stolen generation" Aborigine?

Also the date of when any Dominican president has apologized on behalf of the nation, to the "descendents" of Tainos like tschotschua?

Ricardolito previously said:

cibaeno 75 ..I am sure you do not really beieve that it was British policy to introduce a famine every 2 years instead of about 2 or 3 times a century ,,and I am sure you not believe that the East India Company was interested in collecting taxes ..it was a trading company concentrating on commodities .with the main base in Madras ..their head office is still there ,,The British tried to unite India by buying out the Rajahs and Mararajas and in the case of the Moslems the Nawabs to stop all the fighting between the states....It was Britain that unified India
You began by accusing the British of genocidal policies that killed millions ,,,most definitely it was the proper administration of a huge country that saved millions
If you just visit India you still see the enormous legacy of British administraion in the railways, the courts and the communications . the irrigations systems as well as all the sporting venues that were put in place ..But way off the subject of aboriginees in Australia

RoyStone previously said:



.... I'm still waiting.

RoyStone previously said:



.... I'm still waiting.

Nehesy previously said:

"...In the mean time this system of rapacity
and extortion had reduced the people to the most deplorable condition of poverty and wretchedness imaginable.

The monopoly of trade, and the violent
abduction of all their produce in the shape of taxes,
dispirited them to the most extreme degree, and
brought on the country those famines and diseases for
which that period is so celebrated.

In 1770 occurred that dreadful famine, which has throughout Europe
excited so much horror of the English. They have
been accused of having directly created it, by buying
up all the rice, and refusing to sell any of it except
at the most exorbitant price.

The author of the " Short History of the English Transactions in the
East Indies," thus boldly states the fact. Speaking
of the monopoly just alluded to, of salt, betel-nut, and
tobacco, he says, " Money in this current came but by
drops. It could not quench the thirst of those who
waited in India to receive it. An expedient, such as
it was, remained to quicken it. The natives could
live with little salt, but could not want food. Some
of the agents saw themselves well situated for collecting
the rice into stores ; they did so.

They knew that the Gentoos would rather die than violate the principles
of their religion by eating flesh. The alternative
would therefore be between giving what they had^ or
dying ! The inhabitants sunk. They that cultivated
the land, and saw the harvest at the disposal of others,
planted in doubt; scarcity ensued. Then the monopoly
was easier managed,—sickness ensued. In some
districts, the languid living left the bodies of their
numerous dead unburied."—p. 145.

Many and ingenious have been the attempts to
remove this awful opprobrium from our national character.
It has been contended that famines are, or were of frequent occurrence in India;—that the
natives had no providence ; and that to charge the
English with the miserable consequences of this
famine is unreasonable, because it was what they could
neither foresee nor prevent

Of the drought in the previous autumn there is no doubt ; but there is unhappily
as little, that the regular rapacity of the
English had reduced the natives to that condition of
poverty, apathy, and despair, in which the slightest
derangement of season must superinduce famine
;
—that they were grown callous to the sufferings of
their victims, and were as alive to their gain by the
rising price through the scarcity, as they were in all
other cases. Their object was sudden wealth, and they
cared not, in fact, whether the natives lived or died,
so that that object was effected. This is the relation
of the Abbe Raynal, a foreign historian, and the light
in which this event was beheld by foreign nations...."

Quote from "Colonization and Christianity: a popular history of the treatment of the natives by the Europeans in all their colonies (1838)" by William Howitt (English himself) see p 268 of the pdf below and other chapters

http://archive.org/details/colonizationchri00howirich

Karl Marx in the Capital all says that over 1 million of natives died in india due to this famine orchestred by the British colonizer.

British acted like gansters in India and treated the natives like slaves. Not counting what they did in other places, Howitt was english but he doesn't beat around the bush about their exactions all over the world...