format_quote Originally Posted by
Lisa0
To compare the transatlantic slavetrade to any other slavetrade practiced throughout history is ignorant
Which is more ignorant - to include Eastern activity in an overview of slave history - or the failure to mention it altogether? No comparrison have I drawn to say one was worse than the other. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Slavery has played an integral part in world history
Yes, and so has that thing called human rights - and as each day passes, it continues to make history. That is something which was first conceived of and developed right here, in the west since then and is now being transmitted to those who are in need of it, both in Africa and the middle east as well as eastern Europe. When hundreds of refugees from the inhumane regimes of Africa and the middle east arrive in our country every year and are given free housing and medical care, we don't hear them complaining about 'transatlantic slavery', which happened many hundreds of years hence. Regimes which the west cannot be held accountable for, yet it still pulls out all stops to assist the victims. It is only when they have been in the country for a while and become absorbed into the exclusive 'middle eastern societies' and 'black zionist' thought patterns resident in Europe, that they then might start to turn against us on our own soil and point the finger, forgetting how it is that they got free in the first place to enjoy the current freedoms of the west.
No other form of slavery mainly encompassed one race and on such a large scale where today when one thinks of slave they think black.
That's right - and when some people think of slave masters, they think white. There is still a surprising number of people who neglect to mention that black slaves were rounded up and captured by fellow blacks and handed over to the white slave traders, who carried them overseas.
So, as you can see, the term 'Transatlantic Slavery' is a broad term which implies that not just one race was involved, but that it was actually an international effort, involving English, American, African and Arab players. To say that white Europeans were the only people responsible for slave trading is erroneous as it is ignorant.
Slavery is a human injustice, not merely a white European one. To say that guilt must somehow trickle down, from forefather to present day is absurd. Each person is responsible for their own actions. What counts is what those decendants choose to do about it, in their own age. Martin Luther King himself is considered as much a hero in our secular society, among nearly as many white people as blacks. Finally, we are managing to achieve Martin Luther's dream, which so many of us hold dear. It may take another hundred years to fully achieve, but many of us still hang onto that dream, by championing education and understanding.
If we were to take a
certain that logic to it's conclusion (
one that has been levelled at me, just recently), we could say I am also responsible for the electricity which powers the computer, on which
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ types her diatribe. But I'm not going to because, of course, the whole concept of hereditary guilt and glory is as absurd as it is destitute of reason.
And when you and
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ started to address me, you didn't even consider the question of whether I am black or white. When she starts to point the finger, how does she know I am not of asian descent? In which case, from whom did I inherit my guilt?
I find it really funny when Europeans would like to detract from the crimes they committed against Africa by pointing fingers at others.
As you should be able to see clearly, there has been NO detraction from white involvement in slavery in anything I have said so far. Furthermore, such an accusation can so easily be turned around to face you. I'm glad you find it funny, because I do not regard slavery as a joking matter. The terrible things human beings have done and continue to do to each other, in the name of religion and for money constitute serious crimes against humanity, in my view. I have a very quick sense of humour but seeing you, hoplessly in error, does not make me laugh. Quite the contrary. It actually worries me to know such ignorance still abounds in a day and age where impartial information is now so easily attainable.
all history is taught from a eurocentric standpoint
If that is the case, then how was I able to make this thread?
Here in England, the English & American slave trade is detailed in every school history text book and has been steadily growing in detail, since I was educated.
With a resurgence of nationalist politics and racist organisations in our society, we find it necessary to educate our children about the white involvement in slavery, in an effort to discourage the kind of thinking which brings them about. Besides that, it's the truth, so why
wouldn't we document it?
African history is thought to have started with slavery and colonization and that africans have played no significant part in world history but then again all history is taught from a eurocentric standpoint
Likewise, to the subject of British-Afro and Asian involvement in British and American history. Again, if what you're saying is true, then how is it I am able to buy books and watch copious documentaries on my television, which detail exactly how people of African descent have contributed to our country's history? Before such reforms, we were supposed to believe that black people played no part in WWII but the impartially documented history taught here no longer denies it. Arguably, this is the whole point of secular society. For too long have we been under the power of the church, whom we recognise as having racist tendencies which, by virtue of that trait, has attempted to deny people access to the truth.
The arab slavetrade was wrong and so was any other slavery practiced before but in no way can it be compared to the Transatlantic slavetrade.
Well, if we were to make a comparrison at all; one that has any meaningful use today, then we could say that while slavery
still continues in many parts of the world - such as...
- The sudan
- Niger
- The United Arab Emirates
- India, Nepal & Pakistan
- Indonesia
...there is none to be found here in free, western, secular society anymore.
So which do you consider to be the most effective and intelligent way of thinking? To carry on pointing the finger at the west (
and at me, personally) for a history long gone or start to address the problems which exist today?
I'm sure if I had your sense of humour, I might find
this funny... only I don't. I find it rather sad.