Bold: Telling half of the story? According to you everyone in this thread just wants to point fingers at the white man for calling out what they have done. First of that whole statement sounds ridiculous. You're turning this whole topic into a race war. When you said The White Man i guess you're talking about the whole white race. They're lots of good white people Rasta was talking about the "white men who came to Africa and changed everything in a very negative way"
Underline: I guess the whole world is to blame for the rampant colorism in India, Africa, In America and in the entire world. I guess the whole world is to blame for Europeans coming in Africa and putting different tribes to gather and causing genocide and ethnic cleansing down the world (Hutu and Tutsi) I guess the whole world should be blamed for people in Asia getting eye surgery to look more European I sure in the hell don't see any race/ethnic groups holding worldwide influence to do that. I guess the whole world should be blamed for this ridiculous light skin vs dark skin. I guess the whole world is to blame for the near annihilation of the Native Americans. Maybe i should stop because I'm blaming the white man for serious issues that is happening in the world today. And maybe I deserve ugly stares for telling history in a non biased way. I have first hand experience of what European imperialism has done.
So to cover up what limperalism has done to Africa you said. Africans sold their kin? are you kidding me. Yes Africans did soled their own but a lot of Europeans came in their stealing people like it was no tomorrow.
Slavery existed in Africa way before the Europeans came, but it was not the same type of slavery that the Europeans introduced. The European form was called chattel slavery. A chattel slave is a piece of property, with no rights. Slavery within Africa was different. A slave might be enslaved in order to pay off a debt or pay for a crime. Slaves in Africa lost the protection of their family and their place in society through enslavement. But eventually they or their children might become part of their master’s family and become free. This was unlike chattel slavery, in which enslaved Africans were slaves for life, as were their children and grandchildren.
African kings or tribal leaders had no idea how horrible European slavery was when they sold them. And modern day Kings are apologizing for that. In some parts of Africa they let you have free land if youre African American due to salary
You must be registered for see links
Yes telling half of the story. It's all about what the white man did wrong, but disregards completely what other races did wrong and they are connected and I only saw people saying "it's the truth" and the topic of this thread was from the get-go the question whether what was said was racist or not.
Someone makes a comment about the white man and what he did wrong and asks if that is racist. Then people point out that it is the truth. I then merely pointed that history shows that both the white, black and other men did things wrong and then somehow I'm making this into a racial war despite not even knowing people's skin color and I solely focused on the historical (in)accuracy of their answers? You are starting more of a race war than I am as I only pointed out that on the historical topics mentioned many sides did a lot of stuff wrong, but somehow only the white men get mentioned?
Your comment about the negative white men is a clear example of what I say when you do not view history from the correct historical perspective and your entire perspective of how to view history is screwed up.
And yes the whole world is to blame. I clearly said that there has been a lot of misconduct by Europeans, my point was simply that they were not the only ones. The Europeans wanted to go to India, but the Muslims blocked their trading routs, so they had to find an alternative route. They went north, they went south and they went west and what do you know? New continent. What do you know? New trading route along the African coast. This is an extremely complex matter, but you make it sound like it can easily be seen in black and white if you're going to begin with "look what bad things they did over here and over there on that day in that year". You just showed you are as far as you can possibly be when you are going to say "I witnessed first hand what European imperialism has done". So unbiased. I point simply pointed out that Europe is not solely responsible, which is a fact, then get this crap. It's allowed to blame Europe, it's not allowed to blame Africa or Asia who participated likewise. The Africans liked to see the Europeans coming with their unusual trinkets. The Indians liked to see the Europeans coming with their chests of gold.
No doubt there were some raids, but no most got sold to them. Again they never left the coastal regions, on top of that do you have any idea in fact how puny some of these European countries were? Portugal was one of the first who participated, their country barely had a million people or so, probably even less. Do you think they sent armies of thousands of soldiers to raid only the coast to capture people? Be freaking real. Did you know that the fortresses they built were only heavily armed at the side bordering the see? They did that because there was no threat land inwards, the major threat were their rivals from Europe on the sea. The slave ships were ships of merchants who only had limited crews who shipped a number of slaves each time like three or four times their own number. You like to emphasize so hard what the Europeans did wrong, but completely deny the hard truth that the Africans were no better at all. Who is starting a racial war? Me who clearly acknowledges that both sides were wrong based on historical facts or you who only wants to blame Europeans because you 'witnessed it yourself.'
And the concept that slaves are things died ages ago in Europe, it's high time was during the Roman Empire.
The kings didn't know? Oh please. They barely produced any records, most of what we know comes from European sources. They didn't know, don't make me laugh. That's an utterly baseless statement and then you dare to claim to be unbiased? Even if they did not know exactly, does it matter? Do you think they were going to stop if they did? Get a reality check, it was too profiting and as said there was a chain, there were hell of a lot of middle mans in the process as Europeans remained on the coast, but you have an entire netwerk of slave markets and via via people eventually ended up at the coast. The ones at the center might not have known, but they still enslaved people, took their freedom away and it's highly questionable that people on the coast would have sold centuries slaves without have a clue what they were used for.
@
Bold: When did i ever say that this occurred for 3-4 centuries? How did you get that from my post? Because what I said was, the major demographic populous of 16th, 17th and 18th century Europe is Caucasian. Never did I say that the slave system between Europe and Africa lasted that long because an incorrect statement.
Which is why I didn't say that.
1. Do you honestly think that their were millions of Natural Enslaved African's sold to Europeans by Africans themselves?
Now, African civilization's like many Non-African civilization's had a slave-like system before they ever encountered European's but that system wasn't on a brutal or large scale according to history. When the European's came to Africa and asked for slaves, yes the natives sold their slaves but again are you honestly suggesting that those particular slaves ranged in the millions? Because It can be Historically proven that Europeans..
- Empowered certain tribes by giving them firearms and other European Weaponry in order to suppress, capture and turn over rivaled tribes.
- Confronted African's under the guise of friendship and peaceful exploration and after gaining the Natives confidence pursued their true non-peaceful desires (control of the lands for it's rich natural resources and establishing free labor (Example Being The Zulu Nation).
- It can also be proven that the British/Spain strategically overpowered many South/West African Nations with brute force and fire power, killed the warriors and then enslaved the survivors.
Side-note: Europeans have done those exact things to the Native American Nations, The Aztecs, Asian Dynasty's and the Australian Aboriginals.
I'm not ignorant to the fact that Africans sold Africans but I'm also not ignorant to the fact that Africans were taken from their native continent, stripped away of their culture/languages and sold by the millions into North/South/Central America & The Caribbean Islands by Europeans. That's something that Africans weren't able to or couldn't do.
The Incorrectness..
- The British established many slave-ports hind reds kilometers away from coastal slave-ports such as Elmina, Ghana. some of those mainland ports consisted of Kanem-Bornou, Kufra, Kitara, Gao, Timbukta, Djenne, Zwela and many more.
Correctness..
Yes, the largest slave-ports were located on the African coast couldn't be helped. African enslavement by white was was fueled by the desire of forced/free labor to the America's/Islands and the only way they could have transfer slaves was by sea.
THIS IS IGNORANCE AND PROOF OF YOUR INABILITY TO OBJECTIVELY SEE AND ACCEPT THE TRUTH, How is it possible that a few countries with very limited resources and people succeed in controlling the entire world, you ask?
- Superior weapons (better guns like machineguns, and other technology like trains for transporting food and ttroops) modern trained armies, bribing locals into helping (and then subduing them as well).[/B]
- Germs nations that grew up with large amounts of domestic animals, so they had a larger degree of disease resistance dominated cultures that did not have all 3 of these things.
You talk about millions of dead and diseases. When do you think that was? Nearly whole the South American continent became independent at the start of the 19th century, resulting in countries with the descendants of slaves, colonizers that got estranged from their home country generations ago and mixed bloods. All what you are talking about happened centuries before that.
And again yes Africans were very much responsible for capturing slaves. Taking into consideration the practical aspect of trying to get such an amount of slaves alone proves that without help the Europeans could have never done it on such a large scale. Of course they did quite a lot of things to make things easier for themselves, but fact remains they barely went a few miles land inwards and many things the Europeans brought with them Africans were willing to trade slaves for. And a few kilometers on a continent as large as Africa isn't really much.
Superior weapons? Do you even have any kind of idea what kind of weapons they used during those times? Only starting from the 19th century they somewhat had gotten decent weapons. In the centuries before those weapons weren't particularly efficient, they mainly were used as a means to scare the crap out of people, which worked pretty well for a while, but even that wouldn't have lasted long. Too long to fire, not even remotely accurate and a pain to maintain. Germs was mainly in America in the 16th - 17th century as it spread like wildfire and unless someone would have anticipated such an effect, any person of Asia, Europe, Africa could have caused that. It happens so that Europeans arrived first with lots of Africans. And didn't you just said that it wasn't 3-4 centuries ago?
