[slylee]

What if the "white man" never interfered with Africa or its people, do you think they would develop a new type of technology based on their living conditions or stay primitive? (in comparison to the rest of the world)

[natchina]

(Original post by slylee)
What if the "white man" never interfered with Africa or its people, do you think they would develop a new type of technology based on their living conditions or stay primitive? (in comparison to the rest of the world)

well, before the 'white man' came to africa, africa had already been plundered and enslaved by the arabs for almost a thousand years. an arab scholar has made an interesting short video about it here:




those arabs brought their civilisation, as did europeans bring their civilisation.


so, without those people coming into africa i doubt much would be going on. it would just be a sparsely populated continent inhabited by a few warring primitive tribes maybe?

if white people never came in, i suspect slavery would still exist in africa as it was whites who enforced the tribes and the arabs to stop the trade.

[slylee]

(Original post by natchina)
well, before the 'white man' came to africa, africa had already been plundered and enslaved by the arabs for almost a thousand years. an arab scholar has made an interesting short video about it here:




those arabs brought their civilisation, as did europeans bring their civilisation.


so, without those people coming into africa i doubt much would be going on. it would just be a sparsely populated continent inhabited by a few warring primitive tribes.

if white people never came in, i suspect slavery would still exist in africa as it was whites who enforced the tribes and the arabs to stop the trade.

Wow, it's scary to see how much is kept from the public, unless it was just me who had no idea about what really happened. History is one of my favourite subjects but I assumed what I was taught in school was the full truth, no mention of what was happening before white men stepped into the picture.

[natchina]

(Original post by slylee)
Wow, it's scary to see how much is kept from the public, unless it was just me who had no idea about what really happened. History is one of my favourite subjects but I assumed what I was taught in school was the full truth, no mention of what was happening before white men stepped into the picture.

yeah, its one of my favourite subjects too. one of the reasons why i got into it was because i am becoming increasingly concerned by the way it is being taught -- there almost seems to be a deliberate attempt to create division in society between ethnic groups.

i am a socialist, but its obvious that the politically correct left, who control the education system, are playing the old game of pitting groups off against each other.

one of the ways they do this is to create a false history that plays ethnic minorities against the white majority but falsely claiming that all of their problems are related to past european colonialism.

if history is taught honestly, then everyone will have lot less to be angry about.

theres another interesting 5 minute vid here this time from a black scholar.

[Dee Leigh]

(Original post by natchina)
...................

(Original post by slylee)
................

Interesting. It's funny how that is not taught in schools...but then again you could say that about a lot of things in/out of the curriculum. I think a lot of things are kept in and out of the curriculum by the government to influence generations and the public, so people don't often challenge certain things, so usually the best thing to do is to read around the subject. I guess it's another form of propanganda, like the media.

I do wonder about the way history is taught in school myself. A friend of mine studies History at A Level (I did too) and she does think it's a bit 'dodgy' the way it is taught.

Also, as for the Arabs enslaving the Africans, I do find it rather ironic that some of the black people I know don't ever seem to bring this up, but often they will bring up "how the white men treated our people" and talk (in rather a racist tone) about the white people and "all the stuff the white "devils" did (and still do) to black people". They seem to hold onto this mentality of hating, resenting and being bitter towards white people about the slave trade, but there is no mention about "what the Arabs did."

[yomomalomo]

The ancient Egyptians, kingdoms of Nubia - hello anyone? The Carthaginians might also be considered African. These were some of the greatest civilisations and most advanced people of their time. As far as I'm aware these societies weren't started off by European, Asian or Arab/Muslim conquest. If anything, the people of the Mediterranean and middle east benefited greatly from them. There were great civilisations in most continents throughout time, Africa is, and was not simply the back and beyond of the world.

And what if the Europeans never came, well there were already many well established Islamic states throughout Africa, many of which were well organised and civil. Before the Muslims there were some Christian states and still the residual ancient states. Before the Christians were ancient states as mentioned earlier. So basically there has been civilisations in Africa for a long time, it is not some modern thing which has arisen today because of Europeans.

[dgeorge]

In b4 nathcina explaining that "Africa" had been trading with the "civilised" world long before the European expansion of the colonial days

[dgeorge]

(Original post by slylee)
Wow, it's scary to see how much is kept from the public, unless it was just me who had no idea about what really happened. History is one of my favourite subjects but I assumed what I was taught in school was the full truth, no mention of what was happening before white men stepped into the picture.

Is it me or is this troll like? This information is available to everyone and not "kept from the public" in any way at all - just like South America and North America had histories and civilisations long before European colonisers came.

[slylee]

(Original post by dgeorge)
Is it me or is this troll like? This information is available to everyone and not "kept from the public" in any way at all - just like South America and North America had histories and civilisations long before European colonisers came.

I'm only going by what I was taught in school and there was no mention at all of Arabs enslaving Africa, it was all just about white men coming into their lives and destroying it.

[MasterPotatoHead]

The reason the Arab slave trade is left out when considering the 'black mans' history is due to the fact that the Arab conquests into Africa, following the Islamic Caliphate of course, was for spreading the message of Islam and also plundering resources.

The difference between the Arabs and the 'White Man' was that the Arabs took slaves from everywhere they went, from the Slavics of Eastern Europe to enslaving some of their own Arab population as well.

On the other hand the 'White Man' enslaved Africans due to the colour of their skin solely, believing this gave Africans an inferior title by default.

[slylee]

(Original post by MasterPotatoHead)
The reason the Arab slave trade is left out when considering the 'black mans' history is due to the fact that the Arab conquests into Africa, following the Islamic Caliphate of course, was for spreading the message of Islam and also plundering resources.

The difference between the Arabs and the 'White Man' was that the Arabs took slaves from everywhere they went, from the Slavics of Eastern Europe to enslaving some of their own Arab population as well.

On the other hand the 'White Man' enslaved Africans due to the colour of their skin solely, believing this gave Africans an inferior title by default.

Wow, I honestly had no idea about the Arab slave trade, during my school days we were going through 9/11 so maybe they wanted to keep their history out of the classess, to lessen the hate for them?

[MasterPotatoHead]

(Original post by slylee)
Wow, I honestly had no idea about the Arab slave trade, during my school days we were going through 9/11 so maybe they wanted to keep their history out of the classess, to lessen the hate for them?

Believe me there's a lot of stuff that has happened that's kept away from the History books. The genocide of the Armenians in Turkey for example could even rival the holocaust, yet it is something very few people know of. I think every country in the world would alter it's history ever so slightly so that they could be seen in the best possible light, that's why their's so many conflicting accounts of events.

[natchina]

(Original post by MasterPotatoHead)
The reason the Arab slave trade is left out when considering the 'black mans' history is due to the fact that the Arab conquests into Africa, following the Islamic Caliphate of course, was for spreading the message of Islam and also plundering resources.

The difference between the Arabs and the 'White Man' was that the Arabs took slaves from everywhere they went, from the Slavics of Eastern Europe to enslaving some of their own Arab population as well.

On the other hand the 'White Man' enslaved Africans due to the colour of their skin solely, believing this gave Africans an inferior title by default.

Absolute rubbish. The 'white man' learned of the trade in Africans from the Arabs. The first Europeans to purchase black slaves did so from Arab run slave markets. It had nothing to do with skin colour but availability.

The racism thing was a consequence of slavery, not the cause of it.

The European traders were private individuals. They Did not have armies like the Arabs. They had to purchase their slaves, first from Arabs but eventually they cut out the middle man and purchased straight from Africans themselves. The whole history of slavery is a sordid display of greed on all sides.

[dgeorge]

(Original post by slylee)
I'm only going by what I was taught in school and there was no mention at all of Arabs enslaving Africa, it was all just about white men coming into their lives and destroying it.

There's a difference between not being taught something and it being kept from the public.

Also, Arab slavery was a bit different from colonial/European slavery.

[natchina]

(Original post by Dee Leigh)
Interesting. It's funny how that is not taught in schools...but then again you could say that about a lot of things in/out of the curriculum. I think a lot of things are kept in and out of the curriculum by the government to influence generations and the public, so people don't often challenge certain things, so usually the best thing to do is to read around the subject. I guess it's another form of propanganda, like the media.

I do wonder about the way history is taught in school myself. A friend of mine studies History at A Level (I did too) and she does think it's a bit 'dodgy' the way it is taught.

Also, as for the Arabs enslaving the Africans, I do find it rather ironic that some of the black people I know don't ever seem to bring this up, but often they will bring up "how the white men treated our people" and talk (in rather a racist tone) about the white people and "all the stuff the white "devils" did (and still do) to black people". They seem to hold onto this mentality of hating, resenting and being bitter towards white people about the slave trade, but there is no mention about "what the Arabs did."

Yeah, it's a Shame what's going on with all of the unnecessary divisions. It's ironic too that the Arabs enslaved millions of white people from the coasts of Europe, but the whole issue is only spoken of in terms of white and black.

[Spontogical]

(Original post by natchina)
Yeah, it's a Shame what's going on with all of the necessary divisions. It's ironic too that the Arabs enslaved millions of white people from the coasts of Europe, but the whole issue is only spoken of in terms of white and black.

Were they enslaved because of the colour of their skin?

[cgraham15]

Arabs had colonised most the the North, so without the white men I guess central and Southern Africa would still be tribal. But the Northern half would probably be as it is today.

[natchina]

(Original post by dgeorge)
In b4 nathcina explaining that "Africa" had been trading with the "civilised" world long before the European expansion of the colonial days

Yes, of course. But the problem sub Saharan Africa always had was that it was virtually cut off from the rest of the world by the Saharan desert, so this hindered it's contact with other civilisations which is why it has always remained undeveloped when compared to other parts of the world. Same with the Americas and Australia.


These places had civilisation but remained relatively primitive because of their isolation.

[natchina]

(Original post by Spontogical)
Were they enslaved because of the colour of their skin?

They were enslaved because they were not Muslims I think.

[pr0view]

Probably be worse off in all fairness.

How are the muslims of TSR going to deal with these clearly "false racist and zionist fabrications".