So, that's the ONLY thing that led to slavery and underdevelopment?
So why the fukk is Eastern and Southern Africa just as fukked up, genius?
Please tell me you are joking?
The Fallacy of Blacks Selling Blacks - the Atlantic Slave Trade
- Thread starter cam>
- Start date
Please tell me you are joking?
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Interesting. I agree with most of the stuff, especially the pointing out that Europeans and Africans are both extremely diverse "people", something that seems hard to understand for a lot of coli brehs
Also, he's in no way saying that slavery was "ok" because it was practiced by neighbouring tribes as opposed to Europeans. What he's saying is that the kind of slavery that was practiced was closer to the one practiced in Europe (one could check out the serfs system, especially in Eastern Europe/Russia that went on until like the 19th century if I'm not mistaken). Also that it had rules, and indeed it was closer to domestic servitude as opposed to being basically a "good" as for example in French colonies. The thing is that today the word "slave" is obviously linked to American slavery, so it's hard to envision other forms of slavery.
Same with the arab trade, which was different than "local" slavery.
The bigger point of all of this is that transatlantic slavery is more often than not studied from the point of view of the destination, as opposed to understanding what was actually going on in african societies before and during (let alone after) the centuries of the trade. Notice that almost all the time the story of the slave starts when he/she is bording the boat, sometimes when he/she is captured...but who was he/she? A father, a scholar, a warrior, a peasant? What happened to his family, his home? Was he captured because he ventured in enemy land, was it a set-up? These are all complex stories that usually don't appear, he shed some light on it with a couple examples.
Also, he's in no way saying that slavery was "ok" because it was practiced by neighbouring tribes as opposed to Europeans. What he's saying is that the kind of slavery that was practiced was closer to the one practiced in Europe (one could check out the serfs system, especially in Eastern Europe/Russia that went on until like the 19th century if I'm not mistaken). Also that it had rules, and indeed it was closer to domestic servitude as opposed to being basically a "good" as for example in French colonies. The thing is that today the word "slave" is obviously linked to American slavery, so it's hard to envision other forms of slavery.
Same with the arab trade, which was different than "local" slavery.
The bigger point of all of this is that transatlantic slavery is more often than not studied from the point of view of the destination, as opposed to understanding what was actually going on in african societies before and during (let alone after) the centuries of the trade. Notice that almost all the time the story of the slave starts when he/she is bording the boat, sometimes when he/she is captured...but who was he/she? A father, a scholar, a warrior, a peasant? What happened to his family, his home? Was he captured because he ventured in enemy land, was it a set-up? These are all complex stories that usually don't appear, he shed some light on it with a couple examples.
The moment Africans went from capturing humans and using them for labor to selling them for goods would have clued any rational human that they were completely different systems. What Africans thought Europeans might to do with said slaves is superfluous to the larger point.
So true... instead of turning prisoners of war into slaves, make them join you.
Malt-O-Meal
Banned
You guys are literally doing what bruh told you not to and applying 21st century logic to the 16th century reality.
This is the dumbest justification ever, especially regarding events that are ethically and morally wrong. So I guess we should just ignore slavery altogether and not demonize it since we'd be applying 21st century logic to it. I guess since slavery, chattel and otherwise, was aceptable in those times we can't say it was deplorable. The way slaves were treated I guess was acceptable and not that bad. And I guess we should also alter our view on reconstruction era and Jim Crow as well because those times were different and to criticize those laws and behaviors would be unjustly looking at it through a 21st century lense and today's moral standards.
Stop trying to justify it being ok that Africans sold other Africans because if you absolve them you can also absolve Europeans. Slavery is wrong all around and at no point in time has it ever been seen as a good thing, nor did anyone want to be a slave. Selling people is always fukked up.
I don't know why some African brehs are trying to downplay their ancestors' role in slavery. It doesn't make white people any less guilty. Y'all sold us and your leaders knew what was going on, possibly some of your lower class levels too. It's coming off like some want to paint the Africans who sold us into slavery as not only innocent but oblivious.
The Amerikkkan Idol
The Amerikkkan Nightmare
Dude, because slavery was a part of every society in the fukking history of the world.
It's like what dude said in the video, calling what White people did "slavery" actually gives slavery a bad name as slavery in Africa had rules and was more akin to working at a low wage job today. It wasn't lynchings, burnings, or permanent. People went from slave to leaders in African societies.
The problem is that we're using the same word to describe what happened in all these societies.
The slavery in the bible is not the slavery of cotton fields and plantations. And until you nikkaz understand that you'll always be on some "all slavery is reprehensible" shyt when brehs used to sell themselves into slavery in biblical times. There wasn't these sophistocated welfare states that you have now with social security and welfare and food stamps. Back in those times, dudes would just sell themselves to some rich guy, make a grip and start their own businesses and buy their own houses.
To even compare that to what Europeans were doing to Africans is just wrong and out of context, I'm sorry.
Malt-O-Meal
Banned
Same with rape, incest, murder, etc. That doesn't make it right or normal. Slavery is slavery, whether you beat my ass everyday or not. Slavery is wrong. Owning people is wrong. Selling people is wrong. This argument can be used to absolve white people of all the horrors they've committed as well. I'm not going to allow y'all to sugarcoat it because black people played a part. African rulers saw what was happening here in the states to the slaves and were ok with it.
Last edited:
Ol’Otis
The Picasso of the Ghetto
Ol’Otis
The Picasso of the Ghetto
The Amerikkkan Idol
The Amerikkkan Nightmare
some people are born dumb.....im convinced
And some people are born
Dude, if you can't understand context. I don't know what you.
The overwhelming majority of marriages in this world have been between cousins historically. In America we view marrying your cousin as wrong.
It'd be wrong for us to judge the overwhelming majority of people in world history for marrying their cousins because in 2016 America its seen as some crazy backwards shyt. Context matters.
You only view slavery through the prism of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade because of the egregious consequences. I guarantee you that if it had not happened, we wouldn't be talking about slavery the way that we are.