Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Arab Slave Trade - Should Arab Countries Pay Reparations To European and African.... Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    you obviously don't know much about western colonialism. The third world is a direct result of western colonialism, it did not exist before the western countries colonialised the now "third world" countries and robbed them of their wealth.
    Yes and everyone had great healthcare and lived in mansions as well.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    I find it incredible how the entire history of the Arab/Muslim slave trade was WIPED UNDER THE CARPET! In school, the Marxist, Ultra-Leftist curriculum taught the history of slavery as : White men enslaving poor Blacks for no apparent reason. They still do!

    Furthermore, They taught us that slavery was a RACIAL agenda. That the slaves were taken and mistreated not for the purpose of LABOUR but for RACISM! we didn't learn about the 'Trade', in fact they never told us it was a trade at all. But that the slaves were captured andnd dragged onto ships to America! All at one time! It was only after I conducted my own research I saw the absolute bias, minsinformation spread to me deliberately by the ultra leftist education system. It wasn't hard for me too see what they were trying to do with his 'information'.
    Yes, the Africans thought the prospect of being packed into a ship like sardines and getting transported across the Atlantic was too good an opportunity to miss.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    I find it incredible how the entire history of the Arab/Muslim slave trade was WIPED UNDER THE CARPET! In school, the Marxist, Ultra-Leftist curriculum taught the history of slavery as : White men enslaving poor Blacks for no apparent reason. They still do!

    Furthermore, They taught us that slavery was a RACIAL agenda. That the slaves were taken and mistreated not for the purpose of LABOUR but for RACISM! we didn't learn about the 'Trade', in fact they never told us it was a trade at all. But that the slaves were captured andnd dragged onto ships to America! All at one time! It was only after I conducted my own research I saw the absolute bias, minsinformation spread to me deliberately by the ultra leftist education system. It wasn't hard for me too see what they were trying to do with his 'information'.
    (are you talking about UK education? If so

    Well, one is a part of our countries history (our involvement with "the slave trade", ie the triangle of Africa, America and the UK) and the other is not (Arab countries involvement in their own slave trade networks for hundreds of years).

    It makes sense to have some kind of comparison with other slave trade networks, but the subject is usually biased towards our own countries history and at school its hardly at an advanced level. Its not like a huge political cover-up. More like a lot of people don't think its super relevant and haven't heard much of it and don't relate it to our history.


    Regarding slave trade and race - well it kind of is to do with race. How many ships took poor white people off the streets of England to be slaves in the US? They went half way across the world so specifically find people from a certain region.

    That said, when I was at school I don't remember the labour side of things being played down - but the racial is pretty damn obvious for anyone to see... Its hardly like our education system is fabricating it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by russellsteapot)
    I don't agree with the idea of reparations (for the reason stated by silverbolt), but I'm fairly sure that much of the Arab slave trade involved same-country issues anyway (i.e. the slavers and slaves came from the same country/region), especially in Northern Africa. It's also probably not reliably documented to the extent the transatlantic trade was.
    North African slavers raided as far as Ireland. England, Scotland and even Iceland, but mainly they focussed on Southern Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Slave_Trade
    There was also a huge trade over the Sahara and in the Indian Ocean, running down the east coast of Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    (are you talking about UK education? If so

    Well, one is a part of our countries history (our involvement with "the slave trade", ie the triangle of Africa, America and the UK) and the other is not (Arab countries involvement in their own slave trade networks for hundreds of years).

    It makes sense to have some kind of comparison with other slave trade networks, but the subject is usually biased towards our own countries history and at school its hardly at an advanced level. Its not like a huge political cover-up. More like a lot of people don't think its super relevant and haven't heard much of it and don't relate it to our history.


    Regarding slave trade and race - well it kind of is to do with race. How many ships took poor white people off the streets of England to be slaves in the US? They went half way across the world so specifically find people from a certain region.

    That said, when I was at school I don't remember the labour side of things being played down - but the racial is pretty damn obvious for anyone to see... Its hardly like our education system is fabricating it
    I think people see what they wish too see. They wish it to be racist, and they want it to be told that way for their own spite. I think it's called the race card, or race hustling. Creating that whole fabricated illusion for their own bigotry toward that race maybe, I don't know personally.

    You also are not addressing the fact that Arabs enslaved Africans. There were no White people being sent on ships to Africa because the English were not involved in manufacturing slavers and offering them to foreigners. Isn't that obvious? Africans on the other hand, were.

    Slavery was a business and still is a business. It's just a shame some people have hijacked that notion to discredit an entire race. Slavery was to do with Labour, full stop. If the people of Africa were white, do you suspect the Americans would have turned down the opportunity to buy slaves or something :confused:?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    I think people see what they wish too see. They wish it to be racist, and they want it to be told that way for their own spite. I think it's called the race card, or race hustling. Creating that whole fabricated illusion for their own bigotry toward that race maybe, I don't know personally.

    You also are not addressing the fact that Arabs enslaved Africans. There were no White people being sent on ships to Africa because the English were not involved in manufacturing slavers and offering them to foreigners. Isn't that obvious? Africans on the other hand, were.

    Slavery was a business and still is a business. It's just a shame some people have hijacked that notion to discredit an entire race. Slavery was to do with Labour, full stop. If the people of Africa were white, do you suspect the Americans would have turned down the opportunity to buy slaves or something :confused:?
    No, I don't doubt there would be another difference that would be picked out other than skin colour. Their race was seen as sub-human. Skin colour was a good way of identifying it.

    But you can't honestly think that in the 1800s the general consensus was that white and black people were equal?

    Yes, Africans were the ones that sold slaves to the white traders. That doesn't change the fact that in 'white' countries 'black' people were viewed more like livestock than people. To be traded, sold and worked without pay.

    You cannot argue that the slave trade has nothing to do with racism. Even if it was not directly caused by racism the link is undeniable, white people enslaved black almost exclusively for four centuries - even if the first white people didn't enslave the first black people because of their race it has contributed and festered racism for all that time.

    Maybe if there was no slave trade racism by the 1900s would be much less widespread as black people wont have been treated in such a sub-human way for centuries?

    Sounds like a reasonable thing to learn in school. Saying "Racism has nothing whatsoever to do with the slave trade" is still a stupid statement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    The Bible doesn't teach that Black people are White peoples slaves..wtf.
    Also, to say Colonialism is the reason that every single 3rd world country is third is the most ridiculous piece of propaganda I have ever heard.

    Africa & The Middle East are the richest in resources yet are still third world country's. Germany was destroyed in WW2 yet look at it now. Third world country's are just economic failures, unable to build their own societies so they blame everybody else. Their governments are corrupt also. Dissary in those countries isn't just economically either. It's socially too with mass violence, conflict & war. It's a catastrophe all round, on every level. Some still live in stone ages it would seem and their are countless of oppressive regimes. That's their own problem.


    yes it does, a Christian was my informant.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

    I never said poverty didn't exist, but the third world didn't! It was through the western countries pillaged that the third world was created! Of course this will not be taught in school, as it is hardly something to be proud of! As Noam Chomsky kindly elaborates.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ0VzkahoGE

    Germany is one of the only western countries that made its wealth independently of pillage. Before the industrial revolution, wealth was Gold (hence gold standard). How much gold does the west have before the stole it from the rest of the world? ect, ect...... The wealth you pillaged resulted in the third world!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    No, I don't doubt there would be another difference that would be picked out other than skin colour. Their race was seen as sub-human. Skin colour was a good way of identifying it.

    But you can't honestly think that in the 1800s the general consensus was that white and black people were equal?

    Yes, Africans were the ones that sold slaves to the white traders. That doesn't change the fact that in 'white' countries 'black' people were viewed more like livestock than people. To be traded, sold and worked without pay.

    You cannot argue that the slave trade has nothing to do with racism. Even if it was not directly caused by racism the link is undeniable, white people enslaved black almost exclusively for four centuries - even if the first white people didn't enslave the first black people because of their race it has contributed and festered racism for all that time.

    Maybe if there was no slave trade racism by the 1900s would be much less widespread as black people wont have been treated in such a sub-human way for centuries?

    Sounds like a reasonable thing to learn in school. Saying "Racism has nothing whatsoever to do with the slave trade" is still a stupid statement.
    Yeah, I agree in some sense. The Africans were looked at as inferior to them after general contact. But I believe that attitude has been carried throughout human history when one group crossed another group, one tribe against another tribe etc.

    The Africans were seen as inferior simply because they were less advanced, and had not evolved to the rate that America, or other parts of the world had. Which I think is generally understandable, considering their nations were vastly inferior in terms of development.

    Society is like that anyway.. we sort people into inferior, superior, better, worse etc. That girls better looking then that girl, this football team is better then this football team, this guy's stronger then this guy, etc etc etc. That's just the way things are.

    As for the way they were treated, slaves throughout history have been treated inhumanely. POW's are treated inhumanely. Women & children involved in sexual slavery are treated inhumanely. The Egyptian Slaves were treated Inhumanly. African slaves were not an exempt form of ill-treatment.

    The slaves in America obviously did face racism, but the notion they become slaves through racism, Is not true at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    yes it does, a Christian was my informant.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

    I never said poverty didn't exist, but the third world didn't! It was through the western countries pillaged that the third world was created! Of course this will not be taught in school, as it is hardly something to be proud of! As Noam Chomsky kindly elaborates.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ0VzkahoGE

    Germany is one of the only western countries that made its wealth independently of pillage. Before the industrial revolution, wealth was Gold (hence gold standard). How much gold does the west have before the stole it from the rest of the world? ect, ect...... The wealth you pillaged resulted in the third world!
    'You'. Ok, it's quite clear of your intentions as of here. Your a third worlder with a chip on your shoulder me thinks. Nothing to see here.

    Btw, The Arab conquest of southern Europe hasn't resulted in Southern Europe becoming a third world country? has it? nor the Roman rule of Southern Europe either. You're really spreading a load of propaganda and mis-information. Their is no evidence to back up your claims. The third world is a catastrophe through it's own means, and still has resources today, so you have no point.

    You speak like their is no Gold in Africa left or something. Those nations were poor, 3rd world country's before anybody colonized them at all. And if you're so accurate, by the amount of Billions given to Africa by the West over the past 50 years, it should surely be first world? oh wait, it's still a crap hole, because the people their cannot form civilizations. Have you seen the communitys of third worlders in the UK too? they're also poor, ghettoized, no-go areas and crap holes generally. So that proves my point. They just resemble their community's back home

    Btw, Arabs were in Africa in long before Europeans? so why have you just mentioned the West? You're just a bias, bigot. The Third world is just a term btw. Don't you get that...so the 1st world.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitargirllegend)
    in fact, the europeans did not actually enslave anyone, they purchased their slaves from arabs and africans themselves.
    Initially yes, although one can argue that if there was no buyer, the Arabs and Africans wouldn't have enslaved so many people in the first place. We can't ignore our ancestors' role in this traffic.

    However, it is indisputable that children born to slaves in the Americas were enslaved at birth, by people of European descent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Does that mean that all black slaves should have to give the money they got back?
    What black slaves? I thought they would have been dead a few centuries ago? Or do Africans possess a superhuman lifespan that I haven't been told about? :holmes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Does that mean that all black slaves should have to give the money they got back?
    maybe its just that its four in the morning and im going for work and only had four hours sleep (broken at that)

    but what? Im lost
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    The Bible doesn't teach that Black people are White peoples slaves..wtf.
    Also, to say Colonialism is the reason that every single 3rd world country is third is the most ridiculous piece of propaganda I have ever heard.

    Africa & The Middle East are the richest in resources yet are still third world country's. Germany was destroyed in WW2 yet look at it now. Third world country's are just economic failures, unable to build their own societies so they blame everybody else. Their governments are corrupt also. Dissary in those countries isn't just economically either. It's socially too with mass violence, conflict & war. It's a catastrophe all round, on every level. Some still live in stone ages it would seem and their are countless of oppressive regimes. That's their own problem.
    Most liberal democratic states took centuries of violence and struggle to reach their current state. It's hardly surprising that most of the Third World hasn't managed it in just 50 or 60 years.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No. Nor should Western countries pay reparations to Arab countries for their slave trades.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitargirllegend)
    it is quite bizarre how the history of slavery is taught. i am not a conspiracy theorist but i do believe the way the subject is taught is designed to stir up division and conflict.

    not only do they completely over exaggerate the european involvement in region, but they also completely skip by the arab involvement which, along with indigenous slave practices had entrenched very complex slave system and routes long before europeans arrived.

    in fact, the europeans did not actually enslave anyone, they purchased their slaves from arabs and africans themselves.

    on hearing of the british attempts to abolish the trade, the king of bonny ( nigeria) said: "We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself."
    Yes, you're 100% right. People will not want to acknowledge it though, because they cannot get anything out it. So they'll just deny the very issues exists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Most liberal democratic states took centuries of violence and struggle to reach their current state. It's hardly surprising that most of the Third World hasn't managed it in just 50 or 60 years.
    They've had longer than 50 & 60 years....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    maybe its just that its four in the morning and im going for work and only had four hours sleep (broken at that)

    but what? Im lost
    Since we did not do anything to black slaves personally (I'm assuming you're white) then why should be have to pay any money of reparation to them, and should the money paid to them be taken back?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Since we did not do anything to black slaves personally (I'm assuming you're white) then why should be have to pay any money of reparation to them, and should the money paid to them be taken back?
    Taken back from who and given to who? I'm clearly not the only one who is confused here. Can you give a timeline, who paid who and when, and who are you suggesting pays back this money and to who now?

    As far as I'm aware everyone involved in such transactions will be dead.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Yes and everyone had great healthcare and lived in mansions as well.
    I did not say that, but the now third world countries were very affluent. How can you even deny this when it is a fact. Europe had little wealth before colonisation, and its lands were only fertile throughout the summer and completely redundant in the winter. As for the desert, those were countries rich of gold/diamonds, ect., thus able to trade...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Since we did not do anything to black slaves personally (I'm assuming you're white) then why should be have to pay any money of reparation to them, and should the money paid to them be taken back?
    Aren't they dead? In fact, haven't they been dead for a couple of centuries?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.