Posted on 07/12/2018 7:20:09 AM PDT by rktman
A man I have known since grade school changed his name, years ago, to an Arabic one. He told me he rejected Christianity as "the white man's religion that justified slavery." He argued Africans taken out of that continent were owed reparations. "From whom?" I asked.
Arab slavers took more Africans out of Africa and transported them to the Middle East and to South America than European slavers took out of Africa and brought to North America. Arab slavers began taking slaves out of Africa beginning in the ninth century -- centuries before the European slave trade -- and continued well after.
In "Prisons & Slavery," John Dewar Gleissner writes: "The Arabs' treatment of black Africans can aptly be termed an African Holocaust. Arabs killed more Africans in transit, especially when crossing the Sahara Desert, than Europeans and Americans, and over more centuries, both before and after the years of the Atlantic slave trade. Arab Muslims began extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did. Arab slave traders removed slaves from Africa for about 13 centuries, compared to three centuries of the Atlantic slave trade. African slaves transported by Arabs across the Sahara Desert died more often than slaves making the Middle Passage to the New World by ship. Slaves invariably died within five years if they worked in the Ottoman Empire's Sahara salt mines."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
What they didn’t reach was that legalized slavery was started by a black man.
In 1655, Anthony Johnson, a black man, sued in Virginia to enslave for life John Casor, a black man. It wasn’t legal before that suit.
Note: The arabs castrated the males for sale in the Middle East.
gotcha
thinking of the schools and their selective history an old phrase comes to mind - “ignorance is bliss!!” They keep the kids in Bliss.
What about the Aztecs? Being their war slaves had particular, let’s say even heart-felt, consequences.
I think some families (a relative few) benefitted from owning slaves, so therefor it seems self-evident that if those families are still wealthy then their current wealth could be considered ill-gotten gains just as if they had robbed a bank or something like that. So it would follow that their victims (their particular slaves and the descendents of those slaves) have been financially harmed. So, reparations from victimizers to victims makes sense to me. I utterly reject all other pigmentation-based reparations, though. So to answer your direct question directly, the direct descendents of slaves whose wealth and labor were expropriated are today still being hurt because they should’ve “started with more” in life, if you will. I can only imagine this would be a relative few, too. I think this would right an historical wrong and put and end to a lot of discussion about “justice” and “white privilige” and so forth (wishful thinking?? Probably). Just my thoughts. Thank you for the question.
Under those standards you could say everyone benefitting at some time or another from ill-gotten gains in history.
The difference between white people and savages is that we don’t hold grudges going back generations. We move forward. We don’t seek to destroy, but to build.
Harboring historic revenge is nothing but primal savagery.
The answers I have are:
1. There is no basis for reparations. That bill was paid in blood.
2. There is not a contest for who wins the slavery contest. Slavery was, is, and always will be an abomination. It’s bad when Arabs do it. It’s bad when Africans do it. It’s bad when whites do it. I find it curious that I see arguments from otherwise sane sounding people who have turned into five year old debaters who are quick to tell us someone else did it first, and worse.
Like I said, I’m lookin’ for some payback for transport, meals and lodging. Don’t think I had any kind doing any of it but it sure doesn’t stop others from DEMANDING stuff.
Indians used to raid other tribes for slaves and women. I guess kidnapping and rape is cheaper than a diamond and a wedding reception. I laugh at the meek and mild depictions of our Native Americans in today’s media.
In 1620? I think you might have your timelines screwed up a little.
And, they are demanding like a five year old in the candy store. It should go nowhere.
“Musa made his pilgrimage between 1324 and 1325. His procession reportedly included 60,000 men, including 12,000 slaves who each carried 1.8 kg (4 lb) of gold bars and heralds dressed in silks who bore gold staffs, organized horses, and handled bags.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali
I think you should learn a little more about the traditional Squanto story and when it happened,
He was held by white men for years? And then he went up to MA and hung out with the Pilgrims?
Where was the English colony where he was held anywhere within 800 miles of Plymouth...in the 1600’s?
Since you don’t know the story, he was captured by explorers and taken back to England, eventually obtaining his freedom but again captured by slavers. Obtaining his freedom again, he returned to North America in 1619 where he found his tribe had all died in an epidemic.
Without his tribe, he was an outsider to the natives, and became employed as an interpreter and guide for English settlers.
That was the story taught for many generations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.