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.
Because other Africans were willing to betray their own brothers & trade/sell them into slavery.
Slavery amongst tribes in Africa existed way before Europeans ever arrived and it still does in three African countries today.
What three countries? I highly doubt it's only those three. Africa is such a sad region. The Sub-Saharan African countries make the Arab countries in North Africa look like paradise, even though we know how dysfunctional they all are too.
What three countries? I highly doubt it's only those three. Africa is such a sad region. The Sub-Saharan African countries make the Arab countries in North Africa look like paradise, even though we know how dysfunctional they all are too.
Mauritania is one the light skinned black Africans still keep the dark skinned black Africans as slaves very sad.
You appear unfamiliar with the history and racial attitudes of the Japanese.
Are you suggesting that if an outside force, say the Americans, attempted to enslave the Koreans or Chinese, that the Japanese would jump to the defense of their 'East Asian brothers' because of a racial similarity?
Because that would be analogous to the claim made by Skydive Outlaw in post #2 that Africans sold "their brothers" in the African slave trade.
Are you suggesting that if an outside force, say the Americans, attempted to enslave the Koreans or Chinese, that the Japanese would jump to the defense of their 'East Asian brothers' because of a racial similarity?
Because that would be analogous to the claim made by Skydive Outlaw in post #2 that Africans sold "their brothers" in the African slave trade.
Not only am I not suggesting the above, I cannot imagine how you could possibly conclude such a thing from anything that I wrote.
What I wrote was that you made a mistake, the sort of mistake that throws a cloud over the credibility of all that you write. You threw out a groundless generalization which was easily demonstrated as false. This follow up post with the inexplicable interpretation on your part, certainly doesn't help rehabilitate you.
Not only am I not suggesting the above, I cannot imagine how you could possibly conclude such a thing from anything that I wrote.
What I wrote was that you made a mistake, the sort of mistake that throws a cloud over the credibility of all that you write. You threw out a groundless generalization which was easily demonstrated as false. This follow up post with the inexplicable interpretation on your part, certainly doesn't help rehabilitate you.
Dude ABQ Convict is 100% correct.
There is no such concept of a "black race" being "brothers" that existed in those societies. It's a totally western concept.
The people in west Africa were selling foreigners who were as foreign to them as people from Europe. The idea that they were one "race" and selling people of their "race" is a baseless western idea.
The Japanese didn't consider people in Thailand or China or Korea their one and exact race and same as themselves. It's actually the western concept that came up with that idea. So anybody who brings up the Japanese attitude towards race as signifying a negation of ABQ convicts original statement.
Traditionally, Jews have been either deported or slaughtered since the Babylon Exile in 586 BCE (or 597 BCE, depending on whom you listen to).
Shabbat Shalom,
Mahrie.
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.