NanaDana
Mollygo
And neither the Romans nor the Vikings imposed restrictions on what could be grown, what could be bought or who people could sell to or buy from.
Sorry, you might have been alive then to actually know that. I’m afraid I wasn’t.It's also total tosh, Mollygo, as the Romans in particular strictly controlled all grain grown in the Empire, notably in Egypt, North Africa and Sicily. The issue of grain to the populace was then used as a measure of social control, based on dependency. They also imposed a sophisticated and effective system of taxation, the four main sources being a cattle tax, a land tax, a tax on the profits of any profession, and a customs tax on all imports and exports. Ill-informed, I'm afraid, and just another attempt to infer that exploitation was very much the sole prerogative of the "evil" British Empire. Such a silly argument, which simply underlines how ignorance can become the Mother of targeted intolerance.
If you can't understand the difference between taxation, the implementation of controls on the supply of a basic agricultural foodstuff and the acquisition of land to grow cash crops which are then exported to the benefit of the occupying power then you totally fail to understand how the British Empire operated. Of course exploitation wasn't the sole prerogative of the British Empire. The Americans were very good at it, and the continuing poverty of countries like Haiti is evidence of that.
But the bringing of the Romans and Vikings was in fact just an attempt to divert the discussion. No matter how they behaved it is the behaviour of the British and the effects their empire had and is still having which really matters. And all the excuses about poverty stricken ancestors, the enclosure act, and the accusations of DianeAbbott history don't change what was done, what is still being done and this country's responsibilities.
I notice no one has commented about the present situation where the man who will be crowned on Saturday is head of the biggest tax havens in the world which are British Overseas Territories. These are still regarded by the UN as colonised states. So the British Empire isn't a thing of the past

. The patrilineal surname system means that many women are all but untraceable unless by someone very determined. A great-great-great aunt might have had three slaves but if she married after inheriting them and passed her money to daughters, who would know they were relatives? Would it even occur to people to try to find out? 
