The Student Room Group

Just a million white slaves

The "Barbary Pirates" captured a million or so Europeans and used them as slaves between some three hundred years till the 19th century.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Why does the history class, the television programme and politics constantly refer to the White slave owner and black slave?

This is the same machinery that ones nothing good to say about Christianity in the past despite that fact that it helped the poor, the sick, and the troubled. And Islam is a shining beacon according to this machinery. Yes this machinery when run by clueless middle class
British quango mentality civil servants created the Rotherham pedophilia situation by allowing to happen because they are afraid to recognise the fear that the perpetrators were Asian for political correctness reasons. Cameron used to preach about gay marriage. He means Christian gay marriage. He would never walk into a Mosque and demand gay marriage from his own free will (a Fatwa would probably be made against him). Neither would be demand Jewish gay marriage. It's good for the White people.

These people have been programmed. There is an agenda to bash what needs to be bashed and praise what needs to be praised using examples which for a narrative and without using a full data set, hence why you have never been taught about white slaves, or Jewish ownership of the transatlantic slave trade, or why white privilege is an issue but Jewish privileges is not an issue.

When I look at these people who think they are cool and trendy, all loaded with Frankfurt School and Tavistock Social Engineering, thinking they are leading edge, what I see is a zombie.
(edited 9 years ago)
LOOOOL

The Barbary pirates sold black, white and brown slaves. It was strictly about business and how many slaves they could capture and sell through the black market system. There wasn't a racial agenda. The trans-Atlantic slave trade is by far the worst because predominantly white nations would actively enslave black people because they were deemed inferior/sub-human and then they kept them in a position of inferiority by systematically instituitionalising that slavery creating a legacy that set the black community centuries back in terms of development. Our society will never forget the racism of predominantly white people, because forgetting runs the risk of it happening again.
Original post by HeavyTeddy
LOOOOL

The Barbary pirates sold black, white and brown slaves. It was strictly about business and how many slaves they could capture and sell through the black market system. There wasn't a racial agenda. The trans-Atlantic slave trade is by far the worst because predominantly white nations would actively enslave black people because they were deemed inferior/sub-human and then they kept them in a position of inferiority by systematically instituitionalising that slavery creating a legacy that set the black community centuries back in terms of development. Our society will never forget the racism of predominantly white people, because forgetting runs the risk of it happening again.


So let me get this straight. If I rob you just because I feel like it, it's better than if I rob you for your race. And if I rob you for your T-Shirt colour, size of your house, Astrological sign, or favourite tea, it's better than if I rob you for your race, gender, religion or sexuality?

So cultural marxism is ingrained in our logic and we adhere to the categories it deems to be important. Makes sense.

And history is written (or rewritten?) by cultural marxism.

And you are saying history is being used to prevent something happening in the future I.e. Change the future? Isnt that what Orwell talked about?

And with political correctness ISIS are apparently not proper Islamics and patriots in the West are evildoers I.e. We live under an agenda, so it's not like political correctness is a halo of goodness.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Refuse_censor
The "Barbary Pirates" captured a million or so Europeans and used them as slaves between some three hundred years till the 19th century.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Why does the history class, the television programme and politics constantly refer to the White slave owner and black slave?


Between the 16th and 19th century the Barbary Pirates did indeed capture around 1 million Europeans to use them as slaves. In the same time, however, over 12 million Africans were used as slaves and sent off to the Americas.

Why do we not cover the Arab and Barbary slave trades? It isn't relavent to our history. Plus history education is pretty poor in this country. I didn't even learn about the Ottoman Empire let alone any slave trades surrounding it.

Original post by Refuse_censor
This is the same machinery that ones nothing good to say about Christianity in the past despite that fact that it helped the poor, the sick, and the troubled. And Islam is a shining beacon according to this machinery. Yes this machinery when run by clueless middle class British quango mentality civil servants created the Rotherham pedophilia situation by allowing to happen because they are afraid to recognise the fear that the perpetrators were Asian for political correctness reasons. Cameron used to preach about gay marriage. He means Christian gay marriage. He would never walk into a Mosque and demand gay marriage from his own free will (a Fatwa would probably be made against him). Neither would be demand Jewish gay marriage. It's good for the White people.


How do you know that the reason ''the history class, the television programme and politics constantly refer to the White slave owner and black slave'' is because of some conspiracy to undermine white Christian values, for white-genocide, Jewish supremacy, blah blah blah, *insert buzzword*?

Original post by Refuse_censor
These people have been programmed. There is an agenda to bash what needs to be bashed and praise what needs to be praised using examples which for a narrative and without using a full data set, hence why you have never been taught about white slaves, or Jewish ownership of the transatlantic slave trade, or why white privilege is an issue but Jewish privileges is not an issue.

When I look at these people who think they are cool and trendy, all loaded with Frankfurt School and Tavistock Social Engineering, thinking they are leading edge, what I see is a zombie.


Ok.
Reply 4
well done to the Barbary slaves for balancing things out.
White guilt is an important psychological weapon to the politically correct power structure which dominates society.

They will never teach white people about White slaves -- which numbered far higher tha the 1.5 million victims of the Barbary Coast; people forget that Islam has been making inroads into Europe since the 7th century, massacring and taking slaves as they go -- because white guilt is an important weapon of control for the left. They will never give white people victim status.

Proof. Look at Rotherham. Even after all the evidence had come out, they still refused to admit white people were victims of racism and institutional oppression.

But, it goes beyond that even. The left are attempting to create a 'rainbow' collation of hate against white people. So they ignore the Islamic on African slave trade too, which dwarfed European involvement both in terms of numbers and timescale.

[video="youtube;jWtTSa1BvLI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWtTSa1BvLI[/video]
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Refuse_censor
The "Barbary Pirates" captured a million or so Europeans and used them as slaves between some three hundred years till the 19th century.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Why does the history class, the television programme and politics constantly refer to the White slave owner and black slave?

This is the same machinery that ones nothing good to say about Christianity in the past despite that fact that it helped the poor, the sick, and the troubled. And Islam is a shining beacon according to this machinery. Yes this machinery when run by clueless middle class
British quango mentality civil servants created the Rotherham pedophilia situation by allowing to happen because they are afraid to recognise the fear that the perpetrators were Asian for political correctness reasons. Cameron used to preach about gay marriage. He means Christian gay marriage. He would never walk into a Mosque and demand gay marriage from his own free will (a Fatwa would probably be made against him). Neither would be demand Jewish gay marriage. It's good for the White people.

These people have been programmed. There is an agenda to bash what needs to be bashed and praise what needs to be praised using examples which for a narrative and without using a full data set, hence why you have never been taught about white slaves, or Jewish ownership of the transatlantic slave trade, or why white privilege is an issue but Jewish privileges is not an issue.

When I look at these people who think they are cool and trendy, all loaded with Frankfurt School and Tavistock Social Engineering, thinking they are leading edge, what I see is a zombie.



You want to talk about Jewish gay marriage?

Joseph wasn't wearing that technicolour dreamcoat for nothing


Whilst I don't particularly think that Britain should apologise for the slave trade (you should only really apologise for things you are personally responsible for), you learn about it because it created a legacy within the Western world. Attitudes that Black people are stupid but good for physical labour for example.
Reply 7
Original post by HeavyTeddy
LOOOOL

The Barbary pirates sold black, white and brown slaves. It was strictly about business and how many slaves they could capture and sell through the black market system. There wasn't a racial agenda. The trans-Atlantic slave trade is by far the worst because predominantly white nations would actively enslave black people because they were deemed inferior/sub-human and then they kept them in a position of inferiority by systematically instituitionalising that slavery creating a legacy that set the black community centuries back in terms of development. Our society will never forget the racism of predominantly white people, because forgetting runs the risk of it happening again.


There was also a slave trade predominantly of East European women for domestic service. Anthropologist Peter Frost writes:

At the height of that trade, over 10,000 Eastern Europeans were enslaved each year between 1500 and 1650 for export to North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia a total of 1.5 million…

Differences from the African Slave Trade

The white slave trade differed from its black counterpart in a few key ways. In Africa, a slave-trader typically purchased prisoners of war who had already lost their freedom through local conflicts. In Europe, he played a more active role.

This was the case with the Crimean Tatars who lived under Ottoman protection in the Black Sea region. Beginning in the mid-15th century, they would fan out each year on raids into what is now Ukraine and southern Russia. These raids served no military purpose, being driven by the profits to be made in the slave trade:


The white slave trade was different in a second way. Most black slaves were destined for physical labor on plantations. There was thus a stronger preference for men over women. In contrast, white slaves were used more for domestic service, particularly concubinage and marriage. There was thus a stronger preference for women, as reflected in the sex ratio of the slave population: black slaves were predominantly male, and white slaves predominantly female. Furthermore, while blacks of both sexes sold for the same price, Russian and Circassian women fetched 50% more than men of the same nationality. (Verlinden, 1977, pp. 211, 224, 306, 315, 330-331, 460, 517; see also Frost, 1990). This price differential continued until the end of white slavery. A mid-19th century report from Turkey states that a “trained, strong, black slave” would cost 4,000 to 5,000 piasters, whereas “white slave girls of special beauty” were worth 50,000 piasters or more (Lewis, 1990, p. 13). ..

Conclusion

Slave trading existed in many parts of the world and during many historical periods. Trading in fair-skinned women, however, was much more limited in space and time. There is no evidence of it during Roman times, at least not on a large scale. If a Roman notable wanted a bride with milk-white skin, he would look among the families in his entourage and not among the slaves at the local market. After all, a native-born woman of good family would bring a dowry and valuable family connections.

All of this changed in the 7th century with the dramatic expansion of the Arab world into the Middle East and thence into North Africa and Spain. The new elites were darker in skin tone and, also, more polygynous. It was these two factors that would fuel demand for fair-skinned brides and concubines.

A third factor was of course the relative weakness of European societies, particularly during the Dark Ages that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. With the gradual strengthening of European states, this trade increasingly took the form of hit-and-run raids that focused on poorly defended areas, such as the plains north of the Black Sea. This raiding would finally end only with European annexation of those “states” that earned most of their income from the slave trade, such as the Khanate of the Crimea and the Beyliks of North Africa.
Reply 8
Original post by SHallowvale
Between the 16th and 19th century the Barbary Pirates did indeed capture around 1 million Europeans to use them as slaves. In the same time, however, over 12 million Africans were used as slaves and sent off to the Americas.

Why do we not cover the Arab and Barbary slave trades? It isn't relavent to our history. Plus history education is pretty poor in this country. I didn't even learn about the Ottoman Empire let alone any slave trades surrounding it.


There was also a significant slave trade (approx 1.5 million) from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and North Africa primarily involving females for domestic service, particularly concubinage and marriage. Anthropologist Peter Frost has posted a bit about it. Frost notes that it highlights the relative weakness of some European societies, particularly during the Dark Ages that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire.

At the height of that trade, over 10,000 Eastern Europeans were enslaved each year between 1500 and 1650 for export to North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia a total of 1.5 million. By comparison, the Americas received fewer than 300,000 African slaves before 1600 and another 1.5 million between 1600 and 1700 (Fisher, 1972; Kolodziejczyk, 2006).

Officially, the “harvest” ended with the Treaty of Carlowitz (1699), which called on the Ottoman Empire to stop all slave raiding (Abou-el-Haj, 1969). Unofficially, it did not end on a large scale until Russia annexed the Khanate of the Crimea in 1783—a quarter-century before the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. Fair-skinned women were thereafter exported on a smaller scale until the late 19th century, mainly from the Caucasus.

Quick Reply

Latest