Why does blame for slavery fall solely on white slave owners? (Rome, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, Arabs did enslave millions of Africans as Whites did.
Why are Whites almost always remembered?
For several reasons in my opinion: at first, it must be said that the notion of "scientific racism" which implied whites (alias Europeans) were a superiour race was invented in Europe.
Undeniably racism has existed everywhere, among Africans themselves as well, but it has never been applied scientifically the way "Europeans" did.
Secondly, Europeans/Whites have always been the "dominant race" in terms of wealth,power,prestige etc (although Asians are rising quickly) and as such nowadays "white" crimes are much more evident and evil.
In other words, "whites" are a huge target in history.
Other things are also true though:
1) "whites" means nothing: Europeans? What have Poles ever had to do with the slave trade?
2) Everything must be put also in context: it was during an age where slavery, racism and colonialism/Imperialism were common. Does it justify? No. But it also implies that:
a) Nowadays "whites" aren't guilty of anything.
b) We are to understand that we are judging events of a timespan ranging from 600 to 100 years ago with our eyes of people living in the XXI century.
You reveal yourself to be thoughtless and agenda driven. There was no germ theory of disease at the time, and whites did not "use disease." It was an accident of contact. There are a few isolated incidents of blankets with germs intentionally being given, but these were not a general intentional policy of European/White people, but the actions of a few. In fact, I seriously doubt them authentic based on the fact that there was no germ theory of disease and have told college professors so. They never had an answer.
As for war, native Americans themselves practiced imperialism, genocide, slavery, systematic rape as policy, and human sacrifice. Nothing special about European behavior except that whites did it better. Please grow up and start to be truthful.
Already covered in my last comment, and the answer is very similar. I will repeat myself verbatim:
There were forms of slavery in West Africa far, far crueler than anything done in America, even including mass human sacrifice during ceremonies such as the festival of the Yams or the Dahomy annual rights. There was chattel slavery in West Africa, and because it involved captured prisoners of wars, and wars were usually against tradition ethnic opponents, it can even be said that African chattel slavery had a racial, or at least ethic component. Anyone who has ever read Ibn Battuta (as I have) will remember a particular disgusting incident in which the king of Mali gave a young slave girl to a group of cannibals to be killed and cannibalized.
Physician, heal thyself.
A slave in Africa at the time might have ended up with his blood sprinkled over yam fields, or cannibalized. A slave brought to America would have to work very hard. American slaves had it much better.
Similarly, the descendants of those who stayed in Africa might still be slaves, as slavery is still practiced (as Boko Harem has heavily illustrated). The decedents of American slaves enjoy freedom and opportunities undreamed of by most Africans even today. Even though Barrack Obama is not descended from American slaves, he illustrates that any young black child descended from slaves can realistically dream of being president of the most powerful nation of all times.
And yet I did not grow up in the era of Jim Crow, but of affirmative action.
Time to grow up. These are weak and hateful excuses. White peoples world wide have gone through a lot of soul searching as to how to correct the mistakes of the past. The mistakes of the past keep happening in Africa, and are being perpetuated by African Americans as a sort of industry. Time to be honest about it.
Well, Arabs did enslave millions of Africans as Whites did.
Why are Whites almost always remembered?
For several reasons in my opinion: at first, it must be said that the notion of "scientific racism" which implied whites (alias Europeans) were a superiour race was invented in Europe.
Undeniably racism has existed everywhere, among Africans themselves as well, but it has never been applied scientifically the way "Europeans" did.
Secondly, Europeans/Whites have always been the "dominant race" in terms of wealth,power,prestige etc (although Asians are rising quickly) and as such nowadays "white" crimes are much more evident and evil.
In other words, "whites" are a huge target in history.
Other things are also true though:
1) "whites" means nothing: Europeans? What have Poles ever had to do with the slave trade?
2) Everything must be put also in context: it was during an age where slavery, racism and colonialism/Imperialism were common. Does it justify? No. But it also implies that:
a) Nowadays "whites" aren't guilty of anything.
b) We are to understand that we are judging events of a timespan ranging from 600 to 100 years ago with our eyes of people living in the XXI century.
Whites ate always remembered in America because they enslaved Africans, fairly simple.
I am certain other countries speak on their slavery offenders.
Whites ate always remembered in America because they enslaved Africans, fairly simple.
I am certain other countries speak on their slavery offenders.
Exactly. These similarly-themed threads are becoming circular, tired, and repetitive when the answer can be boiled down to the two sentences above. I am assuming the purpose of all these threads are the brainchild of some conservatives (decidedly American conservatives) in an attempt to revise history.
First and foremost, what does slavery in "Africa" today have to do with anything? Sierra Leone (of Blood Diamond fame) is geographically closer to Brazil than it is to Mozambique. I think the commonality of Amazonian Amerindians of Brazil today being wiped out for the diamonds underneath their feet is more pervasive with Sierra Leoneans than the commonality of Sierra Leoneans and Mozambicans both being "African". Africa is the second largest landmass on the entire earth. All of these Africans actually have quite little in common relative to European nationalities who are NOT all lumped in together. In any historical context of WWII, no one describes the atrocities of Nazis committed against Jews and Allied forces as "whites" or "Europeans" merely just "killing each other". Certainly there is more context and nuance to WWII as there was to the Transatlantic slave trade.
So yes, slavery still does exist in Africa today. As it does on every continent. Today. Any cursory research done beyond listening to conservative talk radio would make this clear. So certainly, some of the highest percentages of slaves among singular national populations are found in Africa. This is due to the legacy of fragmentation in the aftermath of post-colonialism. If these smaller nations had remained unified under the banners of French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, the Cape to Cairo Axis, etc. then either the proportion of slaves would be far less or the absolute number of slaves would be far less because they would be much larger, much more globally competitive countries (think emerging China).
Why did these former colonies not unify like the British Colonies in America did after 1776? Because despite all being "African", these nations of people really did not have much in common. And even if these countries did form federal entities after colonialism like the US after independence? Remember Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Toledo War, Bleeding Kansas, and all the sectional violence that took place in the United States within the first 80 odd years of American independence? And this culminated with an exceedingly bloody American Civil War in the 1860s? Why are we expecting much smaller African countries to be MORE stable than the US in their first 100 years of independence (well, 60 years or less and counting) rather than LESS stable?
And despite the lack of stability of African countries, are they any more racked with slavery than any other continent? So while yes, some African countries have some of the highest percentage of slaves among their populations if you bother to look at the second map in this link:
Africans are actually slightly underrepresented in the overall number of slaves in relationship to the percentage of the world's population on the African continent. China and Pakistan each may have as many slaves as all African countries combined and India by itself nearly has as many slaves as all other countries in the world combined. As you can see, Russia (aka Nigeria with Snow) is no peach either. So sorry LLN, your map of percentages doesn't tell the whole story. Remember, lighter is better, darker is worse. Where does that put the U.S. again?
Is City-Data not a site frequented by Americans? As we all know, some African chiefs took it upon themselves to round up the entire working age African population over the course of three centuries and had them all waiting, captive and butt-naked on the beach with nowhere to go. Fortunately some European slave traders arrived to pick them up. Had these slave ships simply turned back around and took their African slave cargo back to Europe, there would be no discussion to be had. But that is not what happened. This is why the Transatlantic slave trade and its legacy is a critical component of American history just as white slavery and its legacy is a critical component to Russian history.
It is interesting how the new world went from ; Christian and non- Christian, to Free and not free and finally to black and white. One of the early abolitionist, John Woolman, seems to think the institution of slavery promoted self love in the white man. Being Christian, free and white became gifts of superiority and any one not possessing these three attributes were debased. Native American and Black slave holders still lacked being Christian and or being white which meant they were still not superior than even their slaves.
A higher percentage of blacks owned other blacks than the percentage of whites that owned blacks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPECFRCE
Possibly, I am Misinformed or you are il-informed.
May you provide factual literature.
Cybort do you have a source on this?
Its true that free blacks did own slaves in the United States as did some Indian tribes such as the Cherokee. But I was not aware it was so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fortunately some European slave traders arrived to pick them up. Had these slave ships simply turned back around and took their African slave cargo back to Europe, there would be no discussion to be had. But that is not what happened. This is why the Transatlantic slave trade and its legacy is a critical component of American history just as white slavery and its legacy is a critical component to Russian history.