Just a reminder that in the 1700s Britain declared war on Spain (this was the equivalent of the USSR declaring war on the USA in the 1950s) because a slave owner had his ear chopped off
Men had more balls back then.
>>18064867It was just a pretext, Britain actually wanted to force Spain to give them the right to trade with the spanish colonies (the asiento) and to do so Britain attempted to invaded Colombia but got humiliated by a small garrison of SPANISH BVLLS inside the 16th century fortress of Cartagena de Indias
>>18064867>muh ear "They actually believed that shit lol, lmao even"
The severed ear was pickled and sent to Parliament as a formal grievance.
The War of Jenkins' Ear was a proxy war over trade dominance in the New World. The ear was just the casus belli for a conflict that was already brewing for decades over the Spanish asiento and control of Caribbean shipping lanes. Britain didn't mobilize the entire Royal Navy over one guy's ear, it was about global power and money.
>>18064893>Right to trade>El asientoRight to trade illegal goods, "el asiento" means "el asiento de negros" or "black people settlement", sell niggers is as damaging as selling Opium. Why are British so into commerce that damages the fabric of peaceful societies
>>18064893Yes. It's also astounding that it's considered to be a draw by (((historians))) when it was a clear humiliation for Britain who started the war and who got stomped militarily, failed to achieve any of its objectives and suffered far more casualties than Spain.
>>18067382>Why are British so into commerce that damages the fabric of peaceful societiesIt's nothing personal, Javier. But business is business.
>>18067382Are you telling the Brits introduced niggers in Colombia? Can you expand on this?
>>18067382I hate the eternal anglo so muchThey will ALWAYS ruin everything
>>18067682As the first Spanish arrived the Americas, some of them took natives as slaves, but later on, Isabella & Fernando, the catholic monarchs forbid the slavery of the natives because they were subjects of the monarchy and because they could become Christians, so they can't be slaves. But they allow some slave import, in a limited quantity, also with some rules, they could buy their freedom, and if they became Christians, they were allowed to be another subject of the crown. This trade was not considered clean, so at the beginning it was the Portuguese who have the "asiento" contract, it was a monopoly of the crown, they can grant this monopoly to whoever they want. Later the English smuggled slaves into the Spanish Americas because it was a very profitable trade. After the war of Spanish succession in 1714, the peace treaty grant the "asiento contract" to British traders, so the Portuguese lost their monopoly. But the British sell more goods than the allowed in the contract so it was smuggling
>>18067957Interesting.
>>18067424Why would (((historians))) want to antagonize spaniards and defend anglos
>>18064867>(this was the equivalent of the USSR declaring war on the USA in the 1950s)Not really, the cold war was so terrifying mainly because the USA and USSR had nukes and power projection that the superpowers of previous centuries could only dream of due to advances in naval, aerospace and missile technology. Wars between the biggest powers happened constantly in the early modern period.
>>18064867Spain in the 1700s wasn't as scary as Russia in the 50s
>>18069196>>18069200ability to pollute some place with slaves/negros is more destructive than nukes doe
>>18064867>slave owner
>>18069098because anglos are (((their))) golem
>>18069544Where can I read more about this
>>18069338Lol what
>>18067957>>18067382coping iberijeet, it's not the bongs that turned cuba 80% black
>>18070108Actually it is lmfao, terrible example.
>>18067382>Why are British so into commerce that damages the fabric of peaceful societiesAnd then they always blame the jews
>>18070108It was catalans
