WTF???

[Flashman]

Before the general election there wasn't a single mention of immigrants or immigration, just smear campaign against UKIP. As soon as the election was over, no mention of UKIP, story after story of immigrant murderers, asian rape gangs and EU meddling.



A paper written by for

Keith Vaz MP on Romania and Bulgaria: The feared great invasion that has not materialised - Keith Vaz - Mirror Online
"The feared great invasion that has not materialised" Keith Vaz in 2014.

BBC News. August 2015. "UK net migration hits record high"
UK net migration hits record high - BBC News

[SpontaneousOrder]

why is it anti-black?

there were more white people enslaved by north Africans in the 1600-1700 than ever black slaves in America

Linky

Because they were African slaves. According to the quote.

That aside, people do seem to forget that it was white christian culture that ended the status quo of slavery that had been around for thousands of years.

[Ticktock]

Because they were African slaves. According to the quote.

That aside, people do seem to forget that it was white christian culture that ended the status quo of slavery that had been around for thousands of years.

Yes and no.

The Church in Europe dictated that slavery be ended for all but punitive reasons - "sending someone to the galleys" was still ok as punishment.
Once the exploration of the west African coast took off the explorers found a rich tradition of slavery amongst the native people (as had been common in Europe previously). These were often captured prisoners of war. The Europeans took the existing slave trade in Africa and made a business out of it. They basically justified trading of slaves between African cultures as "not really people like us" and so not covered by what the Church had said. As the trade became more lucrative they encouraged the capturing of slaves by their African partners / suppliers. Where this had been relatively small-scale, as by-product of conflicts, it became a goal of raids.

The first Africans in the US went as indentured servants, as did many Europeans - they agreed to a time of service as payment for passage. The first black slave in the US was owned by a former black indentured servant. One of his indentured servants ran off, and as punishment the courts decided that he should be sent back to his former master and serve the rest of his life - in effect be owned.

So yes, white Christian culture ended the initial status quo, but also helped it shift to a trade in (predominantly) black Africans. It is worth noting that some black Africans were willing participants and profited also, however they were encouraged and paid by Europeans. And yes, Barbary pirates were active, even raiding southern England into the 1800s.

Long answer, but bored and a little drunk in a hotel.

[SueEllen]

Because they were African slaves. According to the quote.

That aside, people do seem to forget that it was white christian culture that ended the status quo of slavery that had been around for thousands of years.

You haven't been reading your Daily Mail* - slavery still exists in the UK.

Most of the slaves now mentioned in the media include groups of Eastern European men tricked into slavery and domestic servants with foreign owners.

*Other less sensation rags are available whose news stories are more believable but have the same basic outline.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yes and no.

The Church in Europe dictated that slavery be ended for all but punitive reasons - "sending someone to the galleys" was still ok as punishment.
Once the exploration of the west African coast took off the explorers found a rich tradition of slavery amongst the native people (as had been common in Europe previously). These were often captured prisoners of war. The Europeans took the existing slave trade in Africa and made a business out of it. They basically justified trading of slaves between African cultures as "not really people like us" and so not covered by what the Church had said. As the trade became more lucrative they encouraged the capturing of slaves by their African partners / suppliers. Where this had been relatively small-scale, as by-product of conflicts, it became a goal of raids.

The first Africans in the US went as indentured servants, as did many Europeans - they agreed to a time of service as payment for passage. The first black slave in the US was owned by a former black indentured servant. One of his indentured servants ran off, and as punishment the courts decided that he should be sent back to his former master and serve the rest of his life - in effect be owned.

So yes, white Christian culture ended the initial status quo, but also helped it shift to a trade in (predominantly) black Africans. It is worth noting that some black Africans were willing participants and profited also, however they were encouraged and paid by Europeans. And yes, Barbary pirates were active, even raiding southern England into the 1800s.

Long answer, but bored and a little drunk in a hotel.

But it's gone now, as far as being just the way of the world is concerned. That was almost entirely a product of white western christian culture of the time - after thousands of years of slavery just being considered normal.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You haven't been reading your Daily Mail* - slavery still exists in the UK.

Most of the slaves now mentioned in the media include groups of Eastern European men tricked into slavery and domestic servants with foreign owners.

*Other less sensation rags are available whose news stories are more believable but have the same basic outline.

I wouldn't call that the status quo though. It's underground. It's criminal. In the same way that human sacrifice still exists in the western world - but it's not normal.

[SueEllen]

I wouldn't call that the status quo though. It's underground. It's criminal. In the same way that human sacrifice still exists in the western world - but it's not normal.

It's actually legal to bring in "domestic workers" with you if you are a foreign national and they aren't allowed to change employers while here. This was brought in to decrease the immigration figures but in fact it leaves people being made slaves.

[stek]

It's actually legal to bring in "domestic workers" with you if you are a foreign national and they aren't allowed to change employers while here. This was brought in to decrease the immigration figures but in fact it leaves people being made slaves.

Not so easy now - that door was closed a while ago..

1. Overview
You can apply for a visa to visit the UK with your employer if you:

are a domestic worker in a private household
have worked for your employer for at least one year
are from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland
meet the other eligibility requirements
Domestic workers include:

cleaners
chauffeurs
cooks
those providing personal care for the employer and their family
nannies
How long it will take
You can apply for a visa up to 3 months before your date of travel to the UK. You should get a decision on your visa within 3 weeks.

Check the guide processing times to find out how long getting a visa might take in your country.

Fees
It costs £324 for a visa as a domestic worker in a private household.

How long you can stay
You can use this visa to visit the UK with your employer for up to 6 months.

You must return home at the end of the 6 months or when your employer returns home, whichever is sooner.

What you can and can’t do
You can:

stay in the UK if your employer takes a short trip to another country during the visit
travel abroad and return to the UK to complete your stay, though you must prove you still work for your employer, eg a letter from them
You can’t:

change your employer while you’re in the UK
change your job for your employer
live in the UK for long periods of time through frequent visits
bring in family members (‘dependants’) - they must apply separately
switch to another type of visa from this visa
get public funds