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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Yes and everyone had great healthcare and lived in mansions as well.
    You're quite clueless about history, aren't you?

    Prior to when the elite of the White European developed an inferiority complex, there was successful and amicable trade going on between many European states and African empires, kingdoms and city-states. It was only later that a few of the elite started to get greedy and well, the rest is history.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    '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.
    Indeed, my ancestry is from a now third world country. Before it was colonised it was irrefutably one of the richest, and even arguably the richest country in the entire world, not just in terms of affluence but also culturally, as it is one the first civilizations known to man (predating the Greeks by 2000 years); as well as the home to many mathematical, scientific, medical advancements and discoveries and even some of the first universities in the world.

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

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

    In terms of wealth, trillions were stolen, so even ten billion a year in aid would required 1000 million years (thats right, ONE THOUSAND MILLION YEARS) to pay back! Also, the west keeps these third world nations indebted, and loans them money (that they originally stole) at high interest to pay back these debts, that puts them in further debt! Also, racism accounts for ghettos' in the UK, due to people like you!

    http://newint.org/easier-english/money/debt.html

    "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."


    AD HOMINEM!

    "Is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    "Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument."

    http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdHominem
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    You're quite clueless about history, aren't you?

    Prior to when the elite of the White European developed an inferiority complex, there was successful and amicable trade going on between many European states and African empires, kingdoms and city-states. It was only later that a few of the elite started to get greedy and well, the rest is history.
    Stop making things up.

    IF he had written "there was successful and amicable trade going on between many European states and African empires" then you would have a point.

    He said 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"

    So, when you decide to talk about the topic at hand. We can have a conversation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    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...
    Well, it isn't fact. Most of Africa was and still is a **** hole.

    Now, there are a few kingdoms here and there but the main reason why the Europeans were able to exploit the African Kingdoms is because they were backwards.

    Widespread colonisation of Africa began in the late 1800's. By that point the European powers were by far the most powerful and had been for more than a 100 years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, it isn't fact. Most of Africa was and still is a **** hole.

    Now, there are a few kingdoms here and there but the main reason why the Europeans were able to exploit the African Kingdoms is because they were backwards.

    Widespread colonisation of Africa began in the late 1800's. By that point the European powers were by far the most powerful and had been for more than a 100 years.
    Well, yes it is a fact. Independent of what you think, Africa was VERY wealthy in terms natural resources (gold & diamonds, ect).

    No, it is because you turned the Chinese invention of gunpowder into guns (well done) and shot/killed the Africans whilst stealing their wealth and forcing them to become Christians (well done once again).

    No, colonisation had began properly in the 7th century, and the wealth stolen helped build the powers into what they were.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonis..._modern_period
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    Well, yes it is a fact. Independent of what you think, Africa was VERY wealthy in terms natural resources (gold & diamonds, ect).
    No, it still is then. It still has a huge amount of resources.

    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    No, it is because you turned the Chinese invention of gunpowder into guns (well done) and shot/killed the Africans whilst stealing their wealth and forcing them to become Christians (well done once again).
    I don't know why you are going "you". I didn't turn gunpowder into guns . I am not European. I am not Christian .

    I am just not biased.

    (Original post by SexyNerd)

    No, colonisation had began properly in the 7th century, and the wealth stolen helped build the powers into what they were.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonis..._modern_period

    Your link doesn't say colonisation by the Europeans "began properly in the 7th century".

    It says "From the 7th century, Arab trade with sub-Saharan Africa led to a gradual colonisation of East Africa, around Zanzibar and other bases"

    As the Wikipedia page correctly notes. The modern European powers began to colonise in the late 1800's in a movement called the "scramble for Africa".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    Indeed, my ancestry is from a now third world country. Before it was colonised it was irrefutably one of the richest, and even arguably the richest country in the entire world, not just in terms of affluence but also culturally, as it is one the first civilizations known to man (predating the Greeks by 2000 years); as well as the home to many mathematical, scientific, medical advancements and discoveries and even some of the first universities in the world.
    which country would that be?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No, it still is then. It still has a huge amount of resources.
    thousands of years of resources collected over time, stolen. Now, mines are owned by western companies and only decades of mining in some cases (since independent) .


    I don't know why you are going "you". I didn't turn gunpowder into guns . I am not European. I am not Christian .


    I am just not biased.
    Nor am I, I discuss such this with my "white" Oxford educated ancient history lecturer regularly.


    Your link doesn't say colonisation by the Europeans "began properly in the 7th century".


    It says "From the 7th century, Arab trade with sub-Saharan Africa led to a gradual colonisation of East Africa, around Zanzibar and other bases"




    As the Wikipedia page correctly notes. The modern European powers began to colonise in the late 1800's in a movement called the "scramble for Africa".
    my bad, but this still doesn't detract from Africa being wealthy and it was pillaged for its wealth.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    which country would that be?
    Links provided.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    Links provided.
    which mention multiple places....
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Past powerful Arab states and Empires enslaved millions of the then weaker White Europeans and millions of Africans. Such occurred for several centuries.

    Therefore, should Arab states pay reparations to European and African states for the Arab Slave Trade?

    Discuss.

    should America pay reparations to African Americans?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    thousands of years of resources collected over time, stolen. Now, mines are owned by western companies and only decades of mining in some cases (since independent) . .
    Ok. I didn't say otherwise.

    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    Nor am I, I discuss such this with my "white" Oxford educated ancient history lecturer regularly. .
    I already know that you are not European because you have already said that.

    Well, maybe if your "Oxford educated" history teacher was teaching modern history and not ancient history then I would take it into account.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Ok. I didn't say otherwise.
    so what is your point?

    I already know that you are not European because you have already said that.

    Well, maybe if your "Oxford educated" history teacher was teaching modern history and not ancient history then I would take it into account.
    This is not modern history and he's a LECTURER, not a teacher. There is nothing to take into account, it happened, it is a fact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    which mention multiple places....
    Should it matter, it holds true if you take into account any of those places.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    They've had longer than 50 & 60 years....
    No, before that they were largely under imperial rule.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    so what is your point?
    The point is that your retort didn't answer what I said.

    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    This is not modern history and he's a LECTURER, not a teacher. There is nothing to take into account, it happened, it is a fact.
    I don't care if he is a lecturer or teacher. He still isn't educated in the colonial period which makes his preaching on the period useless.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    The point is that your retort didn't answer what I said.
    You said "ok, i didnt say otherwise", in regards to my comment that thousands of years worth of mined gold and diamonds were stolen, and these mines are now owned by western companies..... hence, if you agree, whats your point?



    I don't care if he is a lecturer or teacher. He still isn't educated in the colonial period which makes his preaching on the period useless.
    he is an oxbridge educated HISTORIAN, anyone who has studied this in even minor detail will know that the western countries robbed countries, and as a result this countries are now "third world". Do you deny this irrefutable fact?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    You said "ok, i didnt say otherwise", in regards to my comment that thousands of years worth of mined gold and diamonds were stolen, and these mines are now owned by western companies..... hence, if you agree, whats your point?
    Sorry. I didn't notice that you had written "thousands of years".

    So, no, I don't agree any longer.



    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    he is an oxbridge educated HISTORIAN, anyone who has studied this in even minor detail will know that the western countries robbed countries, and as a result this countries are now "third world". Do you deny this irrefutable fact?
    AS I said before, he is not necessarily educated in the correct area. People that do history degrees do not cover the entire history of mankind. He probably did ancient history and that is why he lectures in the subject.

    I deny that "fact" because they were already "third world" before the robbing began. Hence, it as not as a result.

    You don't even know when colonisation started so, you shouldn't really be lecturing me on minor details.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Sorry. I didn't notice that you had written "thousands of years".

    So, no, I don't agree any longer.
    people have been mining for gold and silver for thousands of years, it doesn't matter if you agree or not, its true.



    AS I said before, he is not necessarily educated in the correct area. People that do history degrees do not cover the entire history of mankind. He probably did ancient history and that is why he lectures in the subject.

    I deny that "fact" because they were already "third world" before the robbing began. Hence, it as not as a result.

    You don't even know when colonisation started so, you shouldn't really be lecturing me on minor details.
    no they weren't, they were in fact wealthy (wealth at the time being gold/diamonds, ect), which europe was lacking.

    Of Africa, but that still doesn't mean that they did not rob these countries, thus resulted in them becoming what is now the third world, thats the argument, so let us not resort to ad hominem.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    Firstly, the people in the middle east had been enslaving people (including Africans) for thousands of years before Muhammed (PBH). Secondly, the teachings of Islam encourages one set slaves free as it is a good deed, also, if one's slave asks for freedom, one must grant their request.

    Yes, the Arab slave trade surpasses the Europeans in terms of time, but not in the number nor the inhuman treatment of the slaves.
    i agree
 
 
 
  • 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.