Why is the African slave trade, the Holocaust, and other genocides such as the Native Americans always discussed with multiple films and books produced about it, but I never was taught about the Barbary Slave trade until I came across an article about it on my own?
In 1785 when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, they asked him what right he had to take slaves in this way. He replied that the "right" was "founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise".[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
I only learned about it after Obama stated that Islam was woven into the fabric of American history.
Because that would be racist
>>666767
Because it wasn't as disgusting as the other ones. Barbary slavery wasn't inherited or race based.
>Responding to bait
>tripfag
OP confirmed for faggot.
But yeah, Barbary Slave Trade. Why do you think we started going to Africa in the first place? African slave trade only started because the portuguese needed slaves for their colonies, and had military bases in Africa which were established because of the berbers in the first place.
Because talking about slavery and genocide is only popular in the context of it being used as an excuse to suppress European ethnic identity through shame
>>666767
Because it didn't happen in America.
Well, you are probably particularly uncultured to not know about slavery in the Ottoman empire.
That said crimes against Africans and Native Americans are easy to market to Americans because they happen in America. Plus remembering crimes of important current Muslim allies might be considered troublesome geopolitically. Same reason you don't see many films about the rape of Nanking.
The Holocaust movies are because Jews control Hollywood.
>>666767
If you're asking why it's ignored in American education, it isn't entirely, but very nearly so. It involves (north) African Muslims enslaving (other) white people. You can imagine how that could be "problematic". Despite what /pol/ says, the humanities don't categorically dismiss or hide these kinds of topics, but it's uncommon for them to give it much attention. Quite frankly, it just doesn't provide academics with a clear soapbox, and forces people to entertain uncomfortable implications. It really is a shame, since the slave trade was a huge factor in Mediterranean history.
Other than that, it's just not as 'cinematic' as your other examples – while there were plenty of interesting episodes in the N African slave trade, most of it has languished in relative obscurity because it's hard to compose any single story out of it into some sort of moralistic epic. Not that it's impossible to do, but you'd be feeding the audience an unfamiliar premise with a subject that might make them feel uncomfortable. It's just not Hollywood material, and so nobody bothers talking about it.
>>666767
Dumb tripfag bait but I'm tired of this being brought up. There are two reasons why the subject is obscure. First, it's an older and of lesser scale problem then your other examples, and Americans are not a people will kept on world history. Second, this slave trade was a great deal of embarrassment for the English (significantly but not exclusively) because a significant number of these slave traders were in fact Englishmen that, having been barred from privateering (the only thing they knew how to do) found it well enough to convert to Islam or else collude with Muslim pirates in kidnapping Catholics and selling them off (often back to the Catholic church, making it something of a racket). This piracy was in fact a smaller part of the wider religious wars of Europe between Protestants and Catholics, wherein Protestants allied with Ottomans against their common Catholic foe.
The Atlantic slave trade of Africans and Indians is entirely different, and the Nazi genocides of Jews, Roma, Sinti, Poles and other Slavs, Communists, etc., is even further. You're only hearing about it now because Christians (and by extension Whites) are reactionary fucks that need to constantly remind themselves of how truly victimized they really are so they can keep their notion of self-worth powered by this ressentiment at high levels and some idiot found the wiki page and decided to spam this shit around so the Christians/Whites could feel sufficiently victimized.
>>666811
But according to that quote it was religiously justified.
>one slavery is less bad than the others.
>>666847
Ottoman slavery is almost always spoken of in reference to the Janissaries only, and usually in relatively positive terms.
>>666851
Do you have a source for any of these claims?
>>666960
There are famous plays about this very thing, most famous about the life of Jack Ward called A Christian Turned Turk (not a historical text obviously but he was a famous example of the "Anglo-Turk"). Specifically referring to what was talked about in the quoted post: Traffic and Turning: Islam and English Drama, 1579-1624:
https://books.google.com/books?id=i2vA05yf5p4C&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>667063
I meant the narrative you're spinning about how how it was insignificant in comparison to what the evil whites were doing
>>666767
What kind of scale are we talking about?
Did it last longer than the American slave trade?
>>667155
If you combine it with Turkish and Tatar Slave Trades going on in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, then you get a HUGE slave trade where slaves are being taken into Muslim lands from Europe.
Pretty much whenever a Muslim entity had the power to do so, they took European slaves. To be honest it was the worst in the northern Black Sea area.
>>666811
>Barbary slavery wasn't inherited or race based.
You do realize there were Arab or Islamic priests, scholars, or writers of that time period who saw blacks as uncivilized, stupid animals, right?
I'm going to take it you're not aware of Ibn Khaldun.
>>667213
And many didn't
>>667232
Same could be said of the African slaves in the us, they weren't targeted because they were black
>>667236
But we actually have many writers speaking on the supposed inferiority of Africans meant to excuse their enslavement.
>>667227
>And many didn't
That statement applies universally.
>>667232
I see the Barbary Slave trade as one part of the overall North and East African Islamic slave trade, which includes the Sub-Saharan kind.
Maybe I was operating on a different train of thought here that used a more broad definition, but it is worth pointing out that this other sizable slave trade did have a religious and ethnic basis to it.
>>667244
Only after the market was created by the western kigndoms and the portuguese. I don't know of any writer from before the XVI century talking about these things.
>>667399
I normally don't spoonfeed because anyone who learns about slavery should know this but here
This was in 1444
>>667436
He didn't say that you hysterical cunt.
>>667507
No
It is literally what he said
So far nobody ITT has given numbers as to the scale of this "white slave trade" and how it compared to the African slave trade or Indian slave trade.
>>667520
to put it bluntly the arab slave trade in it's entirety lasted for nearly a thousand years in different shapes forms and sizes as a collective encompassing people of all races creeds and religions, slavery is still pretty rampant in Africa today, can't really put a number to it but you can make a guess between 100 000 and 10 000 000. although this stretches over almost 1000 years and encompasses dozens of nations, take it with a grain of salt though because every ethnic background religion and country is guilty of slavery.
>>667555
So you have no actual numbers then? Good to know.
We do know the Atlantic slave trade transported around 12-15 million blacks to the Americas with around 2 million dying in the Middle Passage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
>>667569
Historians estimate that between 650 and the 1960s, 10 to 18 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe, Asia and Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
>>667244
Yes, in a post-hoc way.
The culture of the southern colonies was an artificially constructed highly-stratified society that was meant to mimic European/Russian feudal aristocracy. Instead of rising above the local population through generations of preserved wealth and the acquisition of capital, ie, "the natural nobility", everyone and their idiot cousin imported their pseudo-serfs from overseas, got rich quick with goods produced by slave labor, spent their money on keeping up with European aristocratic fashion and largesse, and then collapsed economically after the civil war due to the lack of any real infrastructure. The south was more like a vast array of micro-feudal states than anything else, in my opinion.
A common ideology (and little to nothing else) was what brought the nouveau-riche "lords and ladies" of the south together. In defending their decadence, naturally they all defended their sole source of income as "morally correct".
Most of the slave owning founding fathers all seemed to agree that slavery was a necessary evil, iirc. There was a lot less "justification" and whining about the morality of slave ownership when the country was younger.
>>667481
>African slaves adjusted to their condition over time
>15th century Portugal was a more advanced society than 15th century West Africa
This doesn't support your point. That their material conditions were inferior in Africa is an objective fact, and doesn't imply that he thinks Africans are racially inferior.
Your snark also detracts from your argument.
>>667555
The Barbary Slave trade and the Arab Slave trade are not the same.
The Barbary Slave trade was centers mostly in Caucaus and North Africa with small numbers found in kidnapping conquests in western Europe and in a 250 year period was no more than 2.5 million.
The Arab Slave trade which was centered mostly on Sahelian and East Central Africa was 10-15 million, not including pre-islamic Arab trade.
>Slavery still exists in Africa
Slavery still exists in the United States and Europe.
The fact remains that no European derived group enslaved has ever been disenfranchised in contemporary times, they have not face racial discrimination, that have not been unfairly targeted legally, they have not even remained a distinct group to bring attention to their enslavement.
Whereas in the Trans Atlantic slave trade and the Arab slave trade the above mentioned has happened and continues. The slave descendants are still there unassimilated.
Give me a break, it's not the same.
>>666860
Perpetual slavery with no way out and being turned into a permanent serf class even after freedom? There's a big difference between that and temperary chattel labor
>>667213
Ibn Khaldun also thought that Arabs and Spaniards were subhuman too. I've read all his books and I can't find someone he likes yet.
>What is the mark of Cain.
>>667584
The differentiation of the black African and beige african, the racialist notions of civility and humanity.
It's not a matter of being advanced, that's your own spin.
>"On the next day, which was the 8th of the month of August, very early in
the morning, by reason of the heat, the seamen began to make ready their
boats, and to take out those captives, and carry them on shore, as they were
commanded. And these, placed all together in the field, were a marvellous
sight; for amongst them were some white enough, fair to look upon, and
well proportioned; others were less white like mulattoes; others again were
as black as Ethiops, and so ugly, both in features and in body, and almost
to appear (to those who saw them) the images of a lower hemisphere."
There were biases on black Africans, can't handle that than so be it. Doesn't change history.
>>667616
>The differentiation of the black African and beige african
Separating people into groups is not racist
>the racialist notions of civility and humanity
The West Africans being described were living in objectively less developed conditions. It's not "the white man being racist" to observe that living in mud huts is more primitive than living in a Renaissance-era European country.
>It's not a matter of being advanced, that's your own spin.
What?
>"On the next day, which was the 8th of the month of August, very early in the morning, by reason of the heat, the seamen began to make ready their boats, and to take out those captives, and carry them on shore, as they were commanded. And these, placed all together in the field, were a marvellous sight; for amongst them were some white enough, fair to look upon, and well proportioned; others were less white like mulattoes; others again were as black as Ethiops, and so ugly, both in features and in body, and almost to appear (to those who saw them) the images of a lower hemisphere."
"I don't find people who look different from me attractive" is hardly evidence for a systemized ideology of racial inferiority justifying slavery. In fact, this text undermines your point, since there are white slaves present in the group.
>There were biases on black Africans, can't handle that than so be it. Doesn't change history.
I'm sure there were, just like every group of humans holds biases against every other group of humans, but that's not what we're arguing. We're arguing whether there was an ideology in place prior to the institutionalization of the Atlantic slave trade which justified slavery on the basis of the racial inferiority of Sub-Saharan Africans, and nothing you've presented supports that point. And again, you sound like a child acting all snarky and condescending.
>>667594
>The Barbary Slave trade was centers mostly in Caucaus and North Africa with small numbers found in kidnapping conquests in western Europe and in a 250 year period was no more than 2.5 million.
[citation needed]
>The Arab Slave trade which was centered mostly on Sahelian and East Central Africa was 10-15 million, not including pre-islamic Arab trade.
[citation needed]
Also, where are the descendants of these 15 million African slaves in the middle east? Did they kill them all? Did they send them back to Africa? (On what is I'm sure an entirely coincidental note, there are millions of people of visibly European descent living in the Middle East today - I'm sure they're just left over Roman times, though)
>Slavery still exists in the United States and Europe.
Get over yourself, your hyperbole reveals you as a willfully ignorant ideologue.
>The fact remains that no European derived group enslaved has ever been disenfranchised in contemporary times, they have not face racial discrimination, that have not been unfairly targeted legally,
>what are the Irish
>what are Southern Europeans
>what are Jews
>what are Slavs
>they have not even remained a distinct group to bring attention to their enslavement.
What?
>Whereas in the Trans Atlantic slave trade and the Arab slave trade the above mentioned has happened and continues. The slave descendants are still there unassimilated.
Whose fault is that? Is it 100% the fault of le evil white man?
>Give me a break, it's not the same.
Indeed.
>>667659
He said racialism, not racism.
Claiming that there is a more than superficial difference between black African and beige African (when you no way of proving or disproving it) probably falls under that category.
>>667594
>Slavery still exists in the United States and Europe.
lol
>>667659
The reality is the conditions and physicality of African people were perceived as so beneath that of Europeans that slavery was spoken of in a way that benefited them. That they were perceived as repulsive and less than from their paler counterparts shows a level of contempt for their very being.
The fact remains that with this very early viewpoint of the first large slaver in Western Europe we have the blueprint for Africans being written off as a people to enslave de jure.
I don't care what you think of my tone that's not my problem. Calling me names does not show any maturity on you part to say the least.
>>667678
If races don't exist, and are an entirely non-biological social construct, then whey do there exist medicines which work better for different races?
http://m.circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/13/1383.full
>>667694
whew lad, that is a ton of neat projections right there.
Mind you, I am a language major, I can tell you fuck all about biology.
But I can also guarantee you that I know more about it than some fucking Barbary slave trader.
All I am saying is that we often attribute a racial explanation to things with no way of knowing if it applies, because race is the first thing that springs to mind when we look at people, hence it also tends to be given greater importance than it earns, especially prior to the development of biology, and that this phenomenon, which I am sure can't be all that controversial, is called racialization
>>667714
racialism*
>>667693
>The reality is the conditions and physicality of African people were perceived as so beneath that of Europeans that slavery was spoken of in a way that benefited them.
It did benefit them. That being brought from a shitty, archaic living situation into a civilized, developed one represents an improvement in one's lot is not racist.
>That they were perceived as repulsive and less than from their paler counterparts shows a level of contempt for their very being.
People have a natural aversive reaction to people who look different from them, and / or people who they observe as belong to the "out group". Adding the dramatic flair that this indicates "contempt for their very being" does not change the fact that the evidence you've presented fails to demonstrate that a slavery justifying racial ideology of the type we're talking about existed in the time period covered.
>The fact remains that with this very early viewpoint of the first large slaver in Western Europe we have the blueprint for Africans being written off as a people to enslave de jure.
No it doesn't. You're drawing that conclusion by observing the source material through the lens of what happened later. A Portuguese man observing "wow, Africans look weird, and they're pretty uncivilized" is not evidence that he was setting up to draw the conclusion "...so we should enslave the lot of them because they're clearly subhumans! White power, Heil Hitler!"
>I don't care what you think of my tone that's not my problem.
It is your problem, because in the grown up world, we speak to each other with respect and civility. Acting like a brat makes you look like a child.
>Calling me names does not show any maturity on you part to say the least.
Oh, the irony!
>>667720
>Genetic clusters do not coincide in our simplified notions of races.
they correlate very closely as a matter of fact
>>667736
>Here you must note that these blacks were Moors like the others, though their slaves, in accordance with ancient ·custom, which I believe to have been because of the curse which, after the flood, Noah laid upon his son Ham, cursing him in this way: that his race
should be subject to all the other races of the world. And from his race these [blacks] are descended."
You are assuming what people want and need, you have no clue the conditions of these people all you can do is compare youbkife to these and see lack.
It is racist in assuming a races way of living is inferior to your own, that is the literal definition of racism.
Stop projecting not everyone has an aversion to those of other races.
You are not civil in the least, you are merely assuming without having any clue what is being spoken on.
>>667741
Just because you say it does doesn't make it so anon.
race is not static across time and place, race is not universal in categorization.
>>667750
what the fuck are you talking about?
>>667751
I'm quoting the person you are defending and yet know nothing about. this is what he stated regarding Black people and you insist isn't specifically delegating an inferior status to them that excuses their enslavement.
You literally know nothing about what's being discussed and had to be spoonfed this entire conversation.
>>667741
you'll have to elaborate on that.
Because to me, the "simplified notions of race" are the classic ones, i.e. blacks are inherently violent, stupid and inferior, with all that that entails. To my knowledge, there is no scientific basis what so ever for arguing that this should be the case.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong
>>667760
fucking retard
>>667767
You've contributed nothing to the conversation.
>>667750
I'm not going to bother picking this one apart line by line, and instead will just observe that the text from which that quote is apparently drawn - a 1994 paper by Kenneth Baxter Wolf in The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, retrievable by Googling the quote you provided - literally opens with an explicit refutation of your claims:
>The Europeans involved in the enslavement of West Africans were embedded in a cultural framework within which they "made sense" of their actions. Insofar as historians have attended to this framework, the focus has been on the reconstruction of contemporary European images of Black Africans and ideals about "natural slavery" that relies either on Aristotelian tenets about varying degrees of rationality among the peoples of the world or on biblical curses that condemned entire nations to servitude.
>While there is no doubt that the idea of natural slavery ultimately came to dominate this interpretative matrix, the very earliest European expeditions to the West African coast - that is, those of the Portuguese in the 1430's and 1440's - unfolded with a considerably wider set of cultural presuppositions. From the point of view of the captains of these expeditions, the captives they brought back to Portugal were slaves not by nature but by circumstance. They were prisoners of war. Even when the concept of natural slavery WAS articulated for the first time in the context of West Africa, it was expressed within the broad cultural framework of slavery as a function of warfare.
Is a journal article on literally this exact subject enough evidence for you?
>>666851
>It's just not Hollywood material
I dunno, Trump is revealing quite a lot of Islamophobia.
>>666767
That isn't pc.
>>666832
/thread
>>667782
>While there is no doubt that the idea of natural slavery ultimately came to dominate this interpretative matrix, the very earliest European expeditions to the West African coast - that is, those of the Portuguese in the 1430's and 1440's - unfolded with a considerably wider set of cultural presuppositions. From the point of view of the captains of these expeditions, the captives they brought back to Portugal were slaves not by nature but by circumstance. They were prisoners of war.
Everything I posted came from the first large slaver in Western Europe in 1444. Including the quote regarding natural slavery.
The only "exceptional" fact was their willingness to enslave other races as well but maintaining the supposed natural subordination of Africans was there as well.
No need to erase fact.
>>667800
I give up
>>667800
jesus, it's true what they say about liberals refusing to have their worldview be challenged even when you show them directly contradictory evidence
>>667807
The only autism is your unwillingness to accept the primary source and beginning of the Trans Atlantic Slave trade.
Your article even calls those slaves prisoners of war when he and his men literally were going along the coast kidnapping people.
>>667813
I am not a liberal and I am quoting the literal source of the first major slave trader in all of western Europe.
>>667816
>accept the primary source
You know that an interpretation of a primary source written by a scholar using accepted disciplinary practice is more useful in discussions like this than a primary source by itself, right? Although you may consider yourself a scholar, >>667782 has provided pretty much the only analysis by one in this thread. "Accept the primary source," why don't you accept the secondary source along with it like anyone with an education would? Fucking faggot.
Not suited for identity politcs
>>667677
Not him but I believe the Arabs castrated east African slaves.
Also the figures more like 10-18 million slaves.
>>667837
>Fucking faggot
Your name calling doesn't change anything
The fact that you think that my giving an answer from 1444 to this >>667399
>Only after the market was created by the western kigndoms and the portuguese. I don't know of any writer from before the XVI century talking about these things.
Which I duly corrected is incorrect has no bearing.
The fact of the matter is my source is the basis of the trans Atlantic slave trade who has been thoroughly researched by contemporary researchers but most importantly shows your article is in fact false.
Race and natural slavery was firmly entrenched by the 1440s contrary to the article, the knighted slave trader provided the first large shipment of slaves to Western Europe via Africa and rather than prisoners of war he openly States to the active kidnapping of people with his men.
The primary work of the first figure of the transatlantic slave trade has everything to do with the conversation at hand. The belief in Black African inferiority starts out the first year of direct European-Subsaharan interaction/engagement/exploitation.
Crying about it doesn't change the historical evidence contrary to your "article"
>>667857
Ignore his stupidity there are black populations in the Middle East from Yemen to Sri Lanka with also a significant amount of assimilation as well.
Eunuchs did exist but they were a premium, most slaves were not castrated.
>>666767
Something to do with American education perhaps?
>>666854
Quite a lot of them corsairs were indeed Dutch or French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Janszoon
And he sacked Baltimore!
>>666811
>race based
Atlantic slave trade wasn't race-based either, so I guess it's hunky-dory.
>>667784
>Islamophobia
That implies that it's irrational, or a disease.
>yfw Finns were enslaved en-mass ever since losing their war against Korea
http://mikedashhistory.com/2015/01/15/blonde-cargoes-finnish-children-in-the-slave-markets-of-medieval-crimea/
Harvesting the steppe and forest they called it, 6.5 million semi-asians.
>>666817
This
>>667926
muh persecution complex desu.
>>667891
Yes, it is indeed true that crying doesn't change historical evidence :^)
>>666767
You being on a history board, you would likely have some interest in history, and presumably you are an American, so it surprises me you only just heard about what gets called the Barbary Wars. the military actions the USA fought against the Barbary states. Particularly with the reverence that the common person in the US seems to hold the military. The Barbary Wars are referenced in the US Marines anthem.
>>667891
>The fact that you think that my giving an answer from 1444 to this >>667399
>>Only after the market was created by the western kigndoms and the portuguese. I don't know of any writer from before the XVI century talking about these things.
You ignored the substance of my post to make a point that isn't pertinent to what I was talking about. Go fuck yourself, crybaby.
>>666767
Because guilt sell.
Sad tales about half a dozen peasants captured at areas of maritime dispute do not sell.
Moreover, the capture slaves from hostile peoples is a constant practice of all human history. And all beyond the Ottoman frontier, except for the allied states, was the Dar al-Harb.
Especially if hostile peoples ply the waters within their jurisdiction without respect it, and without paying toll. The attacks on coastal villages are reprehensible, but I fail to see how the requirements of Fez, Tripoli, Algiers and Tunis to maritime traffic in its waters could be unreasonable.
>>666767
A lot of the most notorious pirates were of European descent and they were converts.
Also Barbary Corsairs were relatively non-discriminatory, they would let you join them if you converted and Sultan would provide you a ship and cannons if you swore loyalty to him.
You are right about history lessons in America ignoring the history of slavery is wrong but African slave trade was the worst of the bunch.
>>668460
Also to add, Ottomans were operating as a meritocracy for a long time before they went full backwards retarded conservative.
>>667927
>dem crackas be keeping us down mane
>>667213
Are you so sure you're familiar with Ibn Khaldun? Arab and Persian denigration of other 'races' was not actually racism but xenophobia and a modified Hellenocentrism based on Greek understanding of Climes. That is, when blacks are described as uncivilized animals, this is due to their culture and lifestyle determined for them by the climate region they inhabit. They were said to live as animals because they could not help being so far from civilization (i.e. the Mediterranean) and under an incredibly harsh sun.
The idea was that as soon as a black, or a Scandinavian for that matter, could be brought into the Middle East and tutored and assimilated, his descendants would be considered civilized men. In some ways it's a very American way of thought, and that might help explain the disinterest.
>>668359
You seem rather upset that I correctly showed you that even before the massive need of labor in the new world Europeans had already made up their minds about black people.
Name calling won't make that any less real.
For the same reason no one talks about the Crimean-Nogai raids that enslaved millions of Slavs during the same period.
It doesn't fit the political narrative of the intelligentsia to have white people depicted as victims. Whites must be always depicted as devils because that justifies displacement and dispossession in the name of "racial justice".
For example, when Hungary closed it's doors to migrants, a lot of people talked about the Holocaust. That's nice, that fits the narrative, Hungarians are evil racists who let Jews die. It wouldn't fit if they talked about the Ottoman conquest of Hungary, where 3 millions Hungarians were enslaved by Turks, because that would make people understand why Hungary isn't keen on letting Muslim migrants enter their country, which is something the intelligentsia absolutely wants.
>>669887
Name calling may not make you more wrong, buy you're ignoring secondary scholarship that's been posted in this thread because it contradicts your narrative and your belief in your own authority. You're committing an inexcusable intellectual error because you're an idiot.
>>667784
A bit of Islamoskepticism is healthy.
There aren't Hollywood films for even 1% of the horrible things that have happened to humanity.
>>669959
There are secondary sources in my own posts as well as primary. It's foolish to even recognize an "article" that States something didn't exist when the primary post states the contrary and obviously so.
calling me names does not change that data, calling me an idiot doesn't erase the first account of the first European slavery speaking on the natural enslavement of black people.
You can't intellectually go around that.
>>670296
>It's foolish to even recognize an "article" that States something didn't exist when the primary post states the contrary and obviously so
Why is that? Are you saying people are never wrong when they report things? Please direct me to the scholarly analyses of your source that you've posted, I've missed all of them because of your misplaced belief in your own authority in these matters.
The fact of the matter is that we don't learn about it for the same reasons we don't learn about that time King X of Nowheresville sacked and murdered the city of Idontcare in some bumfuck part of the world. It's just not pertinent. both the African slave trade and the Holocaust have an enormous impact on America and it's place in the world an thus get prime placement in the very limited amount of time the education system has to teach history. The Barbary and Ottoman slave trades do not have such an effect and thus go to the bottom of the list. Any conspiracy you see about race-relations or "muh jews" is all in your head.
>>668384
I made a big post here but for some reason it didnt work, so to sum it all up
Its not guilt its shame
>white people want to rewrite history so that they dont have to feel the shame that they are the first slaves. Sold like cattel for what ever sex slave purpose.
Europeans all alike.
Its even in the name slav-slave
Pic related
>>670313
>I've missed all of them because of your misplaced belief in your own authority in these matters.
Insults don't change face anon.
Researchers base theit information from the records. If there is collaborating information that discusses these event such as knighthood for the deed of enslaving as well as records do laws inhibiting the freedom of movement or rights of slave family unification than yes one can say these things are true
The "Moors" of West Africa and the Beginnings of the Portuguese Slave Trad
Kenneth Baxter Wolf
>Portuguese nobles, longing for some empirical justification of their privileged
status, were more than ready to regard their slaving activities as extensions of the crusade against Islam. But from the perspective of the merchants, who were less concerned with acts of valor than with commerce, it made sense to transform the West Africans-at least the black ones- into commodities and regard them as natural slaves." As the
merchants took over the process of acquiring slaves, it was to be ex-
pected that slavery as a function of warfare should give way to slavery
as a function of biology.
>>670388
You realize your map is equivicating a single event to several right? I could get a map that shows every Christian conquest and compare it to a single Muslim one and it would be just as inaccurate.
>>670417
No he was misrepresenting the text.
The prisoners of war were that of light skin moors not black moors
"This is an interesting observation on Zurara's part for two reasons.
First, the reader is presented with entirely new grounds-biological
ones-for enslavement. If the "Moors" could be enslaved as prisoners
of war, the "black Moors" could be enslaved as the accursed descen-
dents of Ham. 52 Second, if .this genealogy of the "black Moors" set
them apart from the Moors proper, how is it that Zurara could claim
that "these blacks were Moors like the others"? Did he mean this in a
religioussense? No. For when recounting Henry's reasons for author-
izing the ransom of Adahu, Zurara observed that "it was better to save
ten souls than three-for though they were black, yet they had souls
like the others, and all the more as these blacks did not come from the
lineage of the Moors but of the Gentiles, and so the better to bring
into the path of salvation." 53 Zurara is, in other words, drawing a clear
religious distinction between the "Moors" and the "black Moors," the
latter being considered pagan and therefore more likely to embrace
Christianity than Muslims would be. Again, the elasticity of the cate-
gory "Moor" is impressive."
>>666767
You know why, anon
>>669946
Ah yes the evil conspiracy trying to kill the white man. Which is somehow simultaneously run by the white man. Because surely their aren't also tons of films like Braveheart, or any American Revolution film, or literally any films about a european nation struggling for freedom. Yes sir I can't turn on the TV and see lots of shows with White leads acting heroically just as I can see ones with Black leads.
>>670450
What point are you trying to make? These blocks of text aren't helping me understand what you want me to take away from your argument, especially when you make cryptic comments about skin color and take the passages to mean just what you want them to mean.
>he was misrepresenting the text
Give me a reason to believe that, don't just say it. Respond to his questions. He didn't claim that the Portuguese slavers didn't take note of skin tone at all.
>Second, if .this genealogy of the "black Moors" set
them apart from the Moors proper, how is it that Zurara could claim
that "these blacks were Moors like the others"? Did he mean this in a
religioussense? No. For when recounting Henry's reasons for author-
izing the ransom of Adahu, Zurara observed that "it was better to save
ten souls than three-for though they were black, yet they had souls
like the others, and all the more as these blacks did not come from the
lineage of the Moors but of the Gentiles, and so the better to bring
into the path of salvation." 53 Zurara is, in other words, drawing a clear
religious distinction between the "Moors" and the "black Moors," the
latter being considered pagan and therefore more likely to embrace
Christianity than Muslims would be. Again, the elasticity of the cate-
gory "Moor" is impressive."
Seems like race isn't the only motivator here, have you acknowledged that?
>>670456
>Yes, goy, the conspiracy is confined to television networks, and ONLY Jews run television networks!
>>670485
that original baxter quote was misconstruing and conflating the differentiating treatment between black and non-black Africans.
The foundation of West African slave trade was in the expansion of the term "moor" as an excuse to further the trading and kidnapping of people.
Whereas "white" moors were made as prisoners of war, to be seen and dealt with like but not exactly Europeans it was the black moors who were to be traded in exchange, to be enslaved for their biological predisposition, all while being seen as inferior in not only body but even soul (although their soul itself was baptized, saved and thus okay to trade back).
That's what my latest quote states
All these quotes I've posted is about one person, the father of trans-Atlantic slavery. As Baxter has stated there was a categorization of the African that was divide by race infused with notions of a static status based on phenotype and imagined/real cultural alliances.
There is nothing cryptic, it's literally front and center.
>>670456
no its run by the jews who are their own people
come on man if your going to talk about conspiracies at least get them right.
you'd think on this board people would know their conspiracies
>>670551
But what's your greater point? Like, what do you want me to take away from your argument?
>>670566
That beliefs around biological subservience was the basis/excuse for the enslavement of black African people from the very beginning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Though I'm not sure if you're the same person I was originally talking to.
>>670563
Yes, the Jews, perhaps the most ethnically and genetically mongrel people on the planet after Americans and Pashtuns, are a "single people". If you were saying there was an Ashkenazi hollywood conspiracy maybe, but you most definitely aren't. Hell even the Ashkenazi have interbred with whites to such a ridiculous degree their practically more european than middle-eastern like the Mizrahi Jews most definitely are.
>>670599
>beliefs around biological subservience was the basis/excuse for the enslavement of black African people from the very beginning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
The majority of the text you've linked emphasizes that the slave trade was part of a transition from thinking of slavery as something natural (in the 'things have natures and it is the nature of some people to be talking tools' sense) to thinking of slavery in what ultimately became a biological (in the sense that 'these people are biologically different from us and that is why they can be used as slaves' sense). Your text undermines your argument because it explicitly refers to cultural structures and institutions that shaped this worldview. Yes, you've posted one primary source, but the secondary source you've posted interprets it in a way that you explicitly don't, and you only manage to read it that way by misinterpreting it to be about that slaver in particular over the course of one voyage and not European society as a whole over a period of centuries.
>>670619
from what I've seen from trying to add some reasons to /pol/s nonsense is that their are two factions one focused on preserving Israel and expanding its interests.
And another faction which is pretty much greedy fucks who the Jewishness doesn't really factor in that much both of these factions have major influence in politics the media business banking all that junk because they were good with money and rose up with the Europeans during the age of colonization and then America during the cold war
>>667512
No. I said:
Americans only care about things that involve the United States of America somehow, and they are the most important market for most American movies. Native American stories are almost always about directors blowing Rousseau's dick. African slavery movies also usually center exclusively on slavery in the United States, and are indeed almost invariably guilt trips. Holocaust movies also often paint the American forces as some kind of "justice enforcer" that shows up to "punish the bad guys", either onscreen or implicitely.
Turkey is an important stabilizing ally of American interests in the Middle East, but Americans don't know shit about i. So, whatever opinion they form will be heavily influenced by movies.. If Americans made movies about Turks enslaving whites o(or heavily criticizing any o the other important American allies in the Middle East, like the Sauds or Israel, it would worsen public opinion of those countries, which could lead to funds invested in those countries dropping, which could lead to animosity that risks national security to some extent.
>>670624
I was speaking completely within the context of black Africans not that of the general capture and enslavement of Africans regardless of color.
My primary and secondary source speak on both, mentioning the very loose ideas of slavery. But I am using the very first example like Baxter has to set the background and context to the Transatlantic slave trade to show the primary onus of biological subservience on black African captives.
Prior to Zurara there was no large importation of Africans directly to Europe by Europeans and can be said to not be the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade as well as European exploration with black African people and nations. The fact of the matter is slaves of Portugal before then were largely not black, when Black Africans were finally being caught in numbers their enslavement was perceived as a given.
Baxter's work clearly states that.
>>670666
Nothing is wrong.
>>666854
You sound like a butthurt negro.
>>670767
In fact, you've cherrypicked quotes from an article which explicitly makes the opposite point from yours in order to justify a pre-existing narrative. You haven't even provided any sources besides the Baxter article the other anon linked. The arrogance you display in presuming to be more knowledgeable than the published scholar on the subject is quite remarkable, and serves only to highlight your willful ignorance in the service of making a political point.
>>670872
>In fact, you've cherrypicked quotes from an article which explicitly makes the opposite point from yours in order to justify a pre-existing narrative. You haven't even provided any sources besides the Baxter article the other anon linked. The arrogance you display in presuming to be more knowledgeable than the published scholar on the subject is quite remarkable, and serves only to highlight your willful ignorance in the service of making a political point.
I gave you the name of the PDF here >>670402
I have posted a significant amount of the text itself through out this thread, there is no cherrypicking, you just haven't bothered reading it.
Name calling doesn't legitimize your viewpoint, not liking the personal account of the first large enslaved in all of western Europe doesn't change that.
There is nothing explicitly opposite in my view versus him, he speaks on Zuhara's statements around the differences between non-black Africans and black Africans.
Yet still you have nothing to add.
>>670767
>I was speaking completely within the context of black Africans not that of the general capture and enslavement of Africans regardless of color.
I don't see what that has to do with anything.
>Turkey is an important stabilizing ally of American interests in the Middle East, but Americans don't know shit about i.
So you're basically admitting that you're just a Ottoman apologist trying to underplay the role of your ancestors in the Afro-Asian slave trade by calling white people biological racists. Fucking pathetic. I can't wait till Turkey has a civil war in the next few weeks, your people deserve it for allowing shitheads like you to post this poorly on the Internet.
>>670767
A lot is wrong. Most of it is on the level of method and theory.
>>671029
Give me a writer who disagrees with Baxter.
>>666767
>Islam woven into the fabric of American history
Kek. What pint was he actually trying to make with this. Reminding people that we went to war with the Islamic Barbary Coasts and that they were enslaving American citizens doesn't smack of something that he'd like to remind the average American about.
>>671040
There's you, to start with, and that's all that matters: the source you're interpreting explicitly disagrees with you *in passages you've posted to support your own argument* so it doesn't seem like you two are really on the same page. You don't understand the secondary source, and you aren't equipped with an adequate understanding of the context of your *literally singular* primary source to offer a proper analysis.
I don't need a writer who disagrees with Baxter, I only need to point out your inability to read.
>>671048
>said reminding twice
Fuck
>>666847
You see plenty of movies about the rape of nanjing (in china)
>there are instances of "white" people having been slaves in history
>this excuses white people from their history of enslaving people en masse
>>671054
You know you can continue to conflate the treatment of all African slaves with the treatment and views of black Africans but luckily the information available clearly differentiates the two groups so at the end of the day you yelling it's wrong doesn't change things.
Reply back when you can refute Baxter, I'll check-in periodically but until then you haven't refuted anything.
>>671077
it doesn't the problem is people assuming them of being the only ones and that they should eternally suffer for it
>>666767
Why is it that you never learn something about the massive civil war the communist jews started in Germany in 1918?
It lasted nearly a year and they had an army of 2million strong and attempted to establish a communist nation in Germany shortly after the conclusion of ww1. Countless german lives were lost because of this war machine.
There more I learn about german history and the more I look into it myself the more I can understand why jews were treated the way they were in Nazi Germany.
>Now play the pol card cus you are mad
>>671154
Not mad, just curious. Do you have sources?
>>666767
I'm an American, and for us, the only impact the Barbary Slave Trade had for us was on our early military history. As a result, it's not talked about much because it doesn't have much significance. Some of the other things you mentioned are of course overemphasized because of the public education white guilt complex, but I think the reason the Barbary stuff is played down has more to do with its insignificance than it not fitting the narrative.
>>670456
Do you deny that there political groups with great cultural influence, specially in the humanities and media industry, that have a political interest in pushing a narrative of singular white villainy?
I'm not saying that's a conspiracy because there are no closed room deals and cabals, it's just in the common culture of a certain group of people to demonize whites.
For example, you mention Braveheart. The guy who made that movie, and who also made a film about the American Revolution, has been purged from Hollywood.
>>671162
Sure thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Levi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Levine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg
>>671162
These articles are good, though they are mostly focused on Bavaria.
https://idahoroyalist.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/the-tortured-history-of-post-wwi-bavaria-part-one/
https://idahoroyalist.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/the-tortured-history-of-post-wwi-bavaria-part-two/
https://idahoroyalist.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/the-tortured-history-of-post-wwi-bavaria-part-three/
There you meet this precious character, for example.
>Max Levien was the scion of a wealthy Jewish merchant family that claimed both German and Russian heritage, and was also born in Moscow [...] Silently advocating revolution in the early years of the war, when the war began falling apart for the German Empire Levien openly called for revolution and became a Spartacist. He desired an Allied win over Germany, stating: “It is necessary that Germany be humiliated, that the colonial troops of France and England march through the Brandenburg Gate, that Helgoland become the property of the English, and that the German fleet be taken away.”
>In mid-December of 1918, Levien moved south to Bavaria to organize Spartacist groups there, and with the assassination of Eisner in February, he took advantage of the chaos and fervor in Munich to declare the Catholic cathedral in the city be turned into a “revolutionary temple”, which he got—and taking things one step further, Levien insisted that the “Goddess Reason” preside over the ceremony. Max Levien was a man of action and motion, and totally dedicated to the Communist cause (he was also described by many in Munich as being sadistic, which given his penchant for invoking the French Revolution, executing hostages, and utilizing terror tactics to get his way, was in all likelihood an accurate description).
And then people wonder why Jews came to be so hated in Germany after World War I.
People like this were why.
>>671154
Because it was nothing compared to the Russian Revolution or the disintegration of the Ottomans.
>>671213
Thanks to the Freikorps who prevented a further descent into chaos.
They have been villainized for this in official history.
>>671187
>Loxism is a hoax term created by the editors of the Uncyclopedia
>>671218
Well, presumably it's because so many of them ended up with the SA.
Keep in mind that both sides of the civil war were embittered WW1 veterans.
A lot of German soldiers, especially ones that had been on the Eastern Front when communism started to take over, blamed the capitalist ruling class for sending them to die so that they could make a profit.
Still, the chaos of post-WW1 Europe in general is a really interesting subject that doesn't get covered a lot in history textbooks.
>>671222
Just because the word is a hoax, it doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't exists.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, is supposedly a hoax, and yet everything that is said there that it would be done, has been done in the exact way described, so in some ways, the Protocols are more genuine than things that are actually genuine.
>>671228
what is the protocols of the elders of zion
>>666811
>Barbary slavery wasn't inherited or race based
neither was Roman slavery but that didn't mean it didn't result in hundreds of thousands of people being sent to their deaths in mines and on the latifundia
![a-poster-of-the-communist-party-of-germany-kpd-spartacus-league-with-d9tkjr[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Dpoqf0h.jpg "a-poster-of-the-communist-party-of-germany-kpd-spartacus-league-with-d9tkjr[1].jpg")
>>671226
>
A lot of German soldiers, especially ones that had been on the Eastern Front when communism started to take over, blamed the capitalist ruling class for sending them to die so that they could make a profit.
I've seen some interesting material from the period suggesting that a lot of people actually felt like they were tricked into participating in WWI by war profiteers. It didn't have the pro-communist implications you're suggesting, but I can definitely see how German Jews and the Spartacist League could hijack that sentiment and twist it into an anti-capitalist narrative. It's a time-honored strategy of left-wing propagandists to speak of a subset of a group as though they were the entirety of that group or vice versa. It would be straight out of their usual playbook to re-brand the negative sentiments about arms dealers and war profiteers to just "capitalists".
>>671277
sounds like whats going on in America
>>671277
>It's a time-honored strategy of left-wing propagandists to speak of a subset of a group as though they were the entirety of that group or vice versa.
>left-wing
cf. this thread
>>667912
>a couple of imdebted whites had to pick cotton without the fear of being whipped so it certainly wasn't racial
>>671378
The Atlantic slave trade definitely had a strong racial aspect to it, but that doesn't mean it's alright for you to pretend like everything was wonderful for indentured servants. Revisionism and denial is wrong no matter what subject it's directed at. But it's okay to erase the exploitation and suffering of a group of people just to make a snide greentext, right? Clearly you're on the higher moral ground.
You already know you're wrong, but let's just carry this all the way through. They certainly were whipped, and abused, and in general treated in the same capacity as African slaves. Read about slave breeding, a practice condemned even by people who beat their slaves to death, and you'll see exactly how "imdebted whites" were treated.
Also, I know this was also brought up before, but if you're going to focus on race, you can't ignore the fact that many of these were Irish – and even though in modern times we consider them white, back then they were very much considered to be a lesser race by the English, and treated as such. So even among the "white" slaves, there was a racial aspect.
But again, it's okay to completely erase that component, because otherwise you'd have to deal with uncomfortable challenges to your childish world view.
Oh, and the Barbary slave trade was indeed race based, at least to the extent that the Atlantic slave trade was. It didn't conform to our modern conception of race and racism, but then again neither did the Atlantic trade, which only fits superficially. The same impetus exists in both cases, the same kind of rationalization, and the same commodification of race. Maybe it's hard for you to recognize that, because maybe you're obsessed with the modern phenomenon of race, and can't see historical events outside of a modern racial perspective.
I'll give you a hint: the way we view race, the way we treat it, the way we obsess over it? It's a very modern thing. Stop projecting modern biases onto historical events, you racist.
>>671378
If slavery had been race-based, there wouldn't have been black freemen. Colonial ethnic relations created race theory, not the other way around.
>>671609
The barbary pirates captured everyone they could get their hands on.Be it blacks whites or chinese.
They didn't give a shit about your race, they cared just about how much they coud get from selling you.
>>671106
>You know you can continue to conflate the treatment of all African slaves with the treatment and views of black Africans but luckily the information available clearly differentiates the two groups so at the end of the day you yelling it's wrong doesn't change things.
I don't even know what you think I'm trying to argue
>>671293
>A lot of German soldiers, especially ones that had been on the Eastern Front when communism started to take over, blamed the capitalist ruling class for sending them to die so that they could make a profit.
>sounds like whats going on in America
You do realize the importance of American military homogeneity, right?
>>671205
>tfw I was taught in public school the Jews were merely a scapegoat to foment hate and fear
>tfw over time and diligence I found out otherwise
>>674749
Any component not made in America is a component that can't be exclusively sourced from a particular congressional district to ensure the congressman's support for further spending?
>>671277
>war profiteers
Who were these war profiteers?
