I know the fact that he is white makes his words meaningless around here, but its a good listen.
The Truth About Slavery: Past, Present and Future
- Thread starter DEAD7
- Start date
I know the fact that he is white makes his words meaningless around here, but its a good listen.
Thanks for sharing this. I viewed this earlier. It is amazing how Arabs aren't equally vilified and brought into question for in their involvement in slavery.Never once have I ever heard an Arab nation make an public apology of any sort. And their treatment of African slaves was much more horrendous (not to lessen the degree of horror in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade). The fact that there aren't many black Africans in Arab countries despite them being widely used as slave for centuries is testament to its brutality. And it's even worse that black Africans sold their own into slavery as a means to wage tribal warfare. It's really disheartening considering the fact that tribalism is still a major issue today as it was back then. Many Africans on the continent have not learned from their history and fight over the same tribal and ethnic differences as their forefathers. It's even more disturbing to see them fighting and killing each other over religions that were meant to justify their enslavement in the first place.
This is why it is so important to learn every little detail about our history as a people; the good and bad. A lot of us fall silent when presented with the fact that African tribes sold each other into slavery. It should be a cause of great shame and a chilling reminder why unity is so important
Thanks for the video again.
This is why it is so important to learn every little detail about our history as a people; the good and bad. A lot of us fall silent when presented with the fact that African tribes sold each other into slavery. It should be a cause of great shame and a chilling reminder why unity is so important
Thanks for the video again.
Cacs version of slavery was wayyyyy worse
I'm not going to argue which slave trade was worse. I'm just going with the facts stated in the video. Young boys in the hundreds of thousands being castrated and bleeding to death from their injuries. Women being forced to walk across the desert to become concubines with most them dying before reaching their destination. The fact that black Africans don't comprise a larger population within the Arab world speaks for itself. Slavery was just bad all around whether it was in the west or east. And if you want to point the finger at "Cacs" you must also point it at the Arab and the Africans who sold their own into slavery.
If you were going to be sold into slavery, you def wanted to go west. No question.
Alright I'll take a stab at it.
I've done some looking around and have yet to find one scholarly source that talks about Irish slavery. This shyt is cited again and again by libertarians and conservatives to form a narrative that slavery wasn't about race and blacks need to get over it and that kinda thing. There was a book released a few years ago called White Cargo that seems to be the basis of the argument. I can't say anything about it one way or the other since I haven't read it and there seems to be very little discussion on it in academic circles.
This Molyneux guy was trained as a historian but he always has a point to make about things especially regarding race. Did a pretty
video regarding Trayvon Martin and stuff about MLK and Mandela.
As far as a direct response to the material, besides there being next to no work done on it (at least that I've been able to find), he does the moving the goalpost thing. He outright says that he equates indentured servitude to slavery. Now if contracts were broken, that's one deal but every cliometric work I've been through (check out Time on the Cross if you really want to understand the economics of slavery) doesn't jive with his claims.
You know when slavery REALLY took off? 1800's. Whole different animal than what was happening in the late 17th century. That's not to say slaves during that time weren't treated in the absolute worse ways, but he ignores that fact that it got really bad much later on.
Yes we can acknowledge the Irish were treated like shyt during this time period but to equate it to what black chattel slaves were going through (and I'm not big on the suffering Olympics that a lot of people like to do) is dishonest. There is a difference between a broken contract and not being able to make a contract because you are legally defined as a piece of property.
Something that is always washed over with this narrative that slavery had NOTHING to do with race is the cultural aspects of it and what happened after the Civil War. There was a cultural piece that demeaned blacks, there was a science behind it. You don't find documents equating the Irish with monkeys or Jefferson writing about them being a different species in between man and ape. Slavery was an economic system that was supported by a pseudo science with its eyes set on black people, not the Irish. If it was just about being a slave, there wouldn't be laws forbidding blacks from talking with white indentured servants, but there are.
That racist cultural piece came back in the form of Black Codes and Jim Crow post Civil War. Yes there were Irish and Italian Americans lynched during this time, again nothing on the scale of Blacks though.
I don't know if this has been around for a long time or if it's a new thing but these slavery apologists really like their revisionist history. On one side they say "well the Irish were slaves too" so black people need to shut up and on the other it's "look at the Arabs and Africans who sold them". Pointing fingers to do everything but look at what the American Black Chattel Slavery system was. I can usually tell something about someone who comes at an argument like that and it's typically a desire to be dishonest about a topic. Molyneux is just another guy trying to argue that the big bad federal government perpetuated slavery (ignoring the fact that that same federal government fought to end it but that's an entirely different discussion) and that it was destined to die out naturally (again yeah lets allow this to continue until slave owners get tired of making money) but in any case it just wasn't that bad anyways so stop talking about it. With no research to back him up.
I've done some looking around and have yet to find one scholarly source that talks about Irish slavery. This shyt is cited again and again by libertarians and conservatives to form a narrative that slavery wasn't about race and blacks need to get over it and that kinda thing. There was a book released a few years ago called White Cargo that seems to be the basis of the argument. I can't say anything about it one way or the other since I haven't read it and there seems to be very little discussion on it in academic circles.
This Molyneux guy was trained as a historian but he always has a point to make about things especially regarding race. Did a pretty
video regarding Trayvon Martin and stuff about MLK and Mandela. As far as a direct response to the material, besides there being next to no work done on it (at least that I've been able to find), he does the moving the goalpost thing. He outright says that he equates indentured servitude to slavery. Now if contracts were broken, that's one deal but every cliometric work I've been through (check out Time on the Cross if you really want to understand the economics of slavery) doesn't jive with his claims.
You know when slavery REALLY took off? 1800's. Whole different animal than what was happening in the late 17th century. That's not to say slaves during that time weren't treated in the absolute worse ways, but he ignores that fact that it got really bad much later on.
Yes we can acknowledge the Irish were treated like shyt during this time period but to equate it to what black chattel slaves were going through (and I'm not big on the suffering Olympics that a lot of people like to do) is dishonest. There is a difference between a broken contract and not being able to make a contract because you are legally defined as a piece of property.
Something that is always washed over with this narrative that slavery had NOTHING to do with race is the cultural aspects of it and what happened after the Civil War. There was a cultural piece that demeaned blacks, there was a science behind it. You don't find documents equating the Irish with monkeys or Jefferson writing about them being a different species in between man and ape. Slavery was an economic system that was supported by a pseudo science with its eyes set on black people, not the Irish. If it was just about being a slave, there wouldn't be laws forbidding blacks from talking with white indentured servants, but there are.
That racist cultural piece came back in the form of Black Codes and Jim Crow post Civil War. Yes there were Irish and Italian Americans lynched during this time, again nothing on the scale of Blacks though.
I don't know if this has been around for a long time or if it's a new thing but these slavery apologists really like their revisionist history. On one side they say "well the Irish were slaves too" so black people need to shut up and on the other it's "look at the Arabs and Africans who sold them". Pointing fingers to do everything but look at what the American Black Chattel Slavery system was. I can usually tell something about someone who comes at an argument like that and it's typically a desire to be dishonest about a topic. Molyneux is just another guy trying to argue that the big bad federal government perpetuated slavery (ignoring the fact that that same federal government fought to end it but that's an entirely different discussion) and that it was destined to die out naturally (again yeah lets allow this to continue until slave owners get tired of making money) but in any case it just wasn't that bad anyways so stop talking about it. With no research to back him up.
Are you suggesting that the slavery on America was worse than any other? Cause that's a mighty big claim...
Not that I necessarily disagree, I just want to be clear.... and its true most libertarians dont give govt credit for fixing its f*ck ups. Especially those it had no business engaging in, in the first place.
Are you suggesting that the slavery on America was worse than any other? Cause that's a mighty big claim...
... and its true most libertarians dont give govt credit for fixing its f*ck ups. Especially those it had no business engaging in, in the first place.
I'm not saying that slavery in America was worse than any other place in the world. America sure seems to have profited off it a lot more but conditions of slavery vary so widely from country to country and even plantation to plantation over the course of 400 years that to say one is objectively worse than another is worthless. My problem is that men like Molyneux keep pointing fingers outward while America is just as guilty of the sin. If I drive drunk because I drank too much beer, I can't point to someone who drank too much gin and claim that my crime is less harmful than theirs.
Slavery existed in this country before it was a country. The shyt didn't start in 1776. Had the 'states' rights' deal been followed, the South would have been allowed to secede and continue to expand the practice of chattel slavery. And if we step away from the issue of slavery to its offspring, we had to deal with all kinds of shyt in the South because, well, the states, not the federal government, decided to implement laws enforcing segregation. A lot of federal laws limited slavery, a lot did not, but the slave owning states weren't exactly tripping over themselves to free Blacks. It took a war and federal law and federal occupation to do that. Again the federal government does not have clean hands in this regard, but it sure as hell would have been worse if left up to the individual states to regulate the matter.
subs....
I agree with you, but I think slavery outside of North America is glossed over(and ignored) enough to justify the magnifying glass he has placed on it.
Recently there was a thread here about the history of Islam in Africa and how black should reject it, and it touched on some of the same content... prior to that I hadnt really heard much(or been interested) about the middle eastern slave trade.
Do you agree that slavery is/was a power issue not a race issue?
I disagree with this. Horrible as Arab slavery was, some of the forms of slavery in the colonies was much worse. First, I think slaves were much more absolutely persona non grata in the West in general, both legally and culturally- you'd never see a slave rise up to become an aristocrat or courtier, which did sometimes happen in the Muslim world. But that aside, look at places like Haiti. It was an island of slaves, run by a few masters, so slaves had even less monetary value there than elsewhere, and would routinely get brutalized or even killed over minor infractions. They could get their hands cut off for spilling a little wine while pouring it, boiled alive for missing a spot while cleaning, skinned and fed to animals, etc. All that stuff is well-documented. I don't think there's a real parallel to that kind of treatment in the Arab world.
I honestly dont know enough about the survival rates going west to say, but it looks like most males going east did not survive the castration... it was a raw deal either way.
I agree with you, but I think slavery outside of North America is glossed over(and ignored) enough to justify the magnifying glass he has placed on it.
Recently there was a thread here about the history of Islam in Africa and how black should reject it, and it touched on some of the same content... prior to that I hadnt really heard much(or been interested) about the middle eastern slave trade.
Do you agree that slavery is/was a power issue not a race issue?
Sure it's a subject of interest. Slavery never existed solely in the Americas and I don't think anyone would dispute that. We focus on it here because most of us live in America and are ancestors of those that were brought here in chains.
Slavery was very much a race issue in this country. If it weren't, there wouldn't have been laws regarding Negroes, we would see laws refer to slaves instead. The language used in the law reveals that race played a central role. Again if race were not an issue, freemen would not have laws restricting firearms ownership and the like. Post-slavery laws were written in terms of race; these are the offspring of racial issues that sprung from slavery. Thomas Jefferson didn't write about power in the Notes on the State of Virginia, he spoke about race and slavery. At best we could say that slavery was an issue of power that very quickly became about race.