arab = pan-ethnic identity, not race. ergo, there were/are dark-skinned arabs. moors exemplify this.
on the parallels of american and arab slavery--
nothing parallels the widespread, chattel slavery employed by europeans. nor the estimated 100 million africans killed en route to the new world....
one of the distinguishing facets of slavery in the swahili coast, was, as per islamic law, a captor could not enslave a muslim. here you see the divisive lines set. coastal african slave traders had knowledge of the interior that foreigners did NOT. under the guise of religious differences, africans who still subscribed to traditional religions comprised the slaves.
zanzibar was capital of the omani sultanate for reasons of the lucrative slave trade.
i don't want to miminize the savagery of the arab slave trade (e.g. - castration of eunuchs in islamic caliphates) -- however, when disingenuous morons attempt to frame the slave trade into some bigger narrative of africans selling other africans, widening the rift between ourselves as african-americans and africans back home, i take issue with that.
slavery was an economic market... who were the central consumers of that market? the african traders were middle-men, and obviously not all africans were slave traders, just as all people in impoverished neighborhoods do not sell drugs--the complicity with foreigners was by a few greedy traitors. to assert africans were backstabbing and complicit undermines that a small subset of the population were actually slave traders within a population-- contrast this with whites in the new world, who essentially unanimously were ingrained with the ideological notion of their superiority over blacks, irrespective of religion. just some food for thought.
, No you didn't.for the british, but if i remember correctly they actually fought battles in north africa to end the slave trade cuz those people wouldn't fukkin stop
