I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that.
I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote.
Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.
> your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again
The point is Britain had slaves. But so did other powers that it dominated economically (and occasionally militarily). Slaves didn’t make “North England’s economy as a whole…among the strongest in Europe and thus the world”; slaves merely made it rich. Britain is already rich. Its future prosperity doesn’t need to come from exploitation.
Like, Britain also had trees. And mailboxes. And black pudding. But trees and mailboxes and blood sausages aren’t why it had one of the strongest economies in the world. Similarly, yes, Britain had slaves, but slaves weren’t why it had the strongest economy in Europe, a continent with several slavery enthusiasts.
I'm not faking quotes, I want to understand your argument about slaves/other people had slaves too/we can be rich again, so I asked if you've meant that. I asked "Or is it:" - which makes it clear this is not a quote.
Your "fake quotes" shows me we have different logic and a different understanding of rhetorical terms, and won't come to any agreement on that basis.