Refutation of "African slave trade"

[Aristotle]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

 

[Aristotle]

Common misconceptions in the "Africans sold their own to slavery" argument:

The is a difference between how Africans observed slavery and how North American whites viewed slavery. For 1) African slaves that were sold were enemies captured as "spoils of war" much like the Romans, Vikings, Spartans, Persians. The practice of slavery was not racist in nature but a product of warfare. Compared to North American white slavery was practiced to replace indentured servitude because they found that slavery economically was more viable than indentured servitude.

"Africans were the first to practice slavery"

First slaves were found in Sumeria Mesopotamia around 3,500 years ago, although slavery was practiced in Egypt, Assyria.

See: Beginning of Slavery, colonies

 

[dilloduck]

Common misconceptions in the "Africans sold their own to slavery" argument:

The is a difference between how Africans observed slavery and how North American whites viewed slavery. For 1) African slaves that were sold were enemies captured as "spoils of war" much like the Romans, Vikings, Spartans, Persians. The practice of slavery was not racist in nature but a product of warfare. Compared to North American white slavery was practiced to replace indentured servitude because they found that slavery economically was more viable than indentured servitude.

"Africans were the first to practice slavery"

First slaves were found in Sumeria Mesopotamia around 3,500 years ago, although slavery was practiced in Egypt, Assyria.

See: Beginning of Slavery, colonies

You mean first recorded slaves I assume ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When Ali, then Cassius Clay, Jr., won the light heavy weight championship in the Olympic games in Rome in 1960, he called himself the prettiest, the fastest, the greatest. Then, as if to undermine Ali’s self-concept and obviously strike a blow for Communism, a Soviet journalist questioned Ali about racial segregation in America. His response was, "Tell your readers we’ve got qualified people working on that, and I’m not worried about the outcome. To me, the U.S.A. is still the best country in the world including yours. It may be hard to get something to eat sometimes, but anyhow, I ain’t fighting alligators and living in a mud hut."
Robert Lipsyte, "Free to be Muhammad Ali," , p. 3

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

And your point is?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fallacy is trying to pretend that the fact Blacks sold and still sell slaves is irrelevant.

 

[Aristotle]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

And your point is?

The point is any white person whether from America or Europe who use the derailment argument fail to acknowledge or refuses to acknowledge that Whites controlling the Transatlantic slave trade which enslaved 12 million people in 400 years (yet likes to highlight slavery elsewhere in the world) is an attempt at excusing one evil for another. As I've seen here and offline a lot of whites I've discussed slavery with tend to use this argument which is relatively similar to how an eight year old responds when stealing a cookie. There is a failure to own up to an evil and typically this failure is followed ip by excuses.

 

[Aristotle]

Common misconceptions in the "Africans sold their own to slavery" argument:

The is a difference between how Africans observed slavery and how North American whites viewed slavery. For 1) African slaves that were sold were enemies captured as "spoils of war" much like the Romans, Vikings, Spartans, Persians. The practice of slavery was not racist in nature but a product of warfare. Compared to North American white slavery was practiced to replace indentured servitude because they found that slavery economically was more viable than indentured servitude.

"Africans were the first to practice slavery"

First slaves were found in Sumeria Mesopotamia around 3,500 years ago, although slavery was practiced in Egypt, Assyria.

See: Beginning of Slavery, colonies

You mean first recorded slaves I assume ?

yes sorry and thanks for that correct.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

And your point is?

The point is any white person whether from America or Europe who use the derailment argument fail to acknowledge or refuses to acknowledge that Whites controlling the Transatlantic slave trade which enslaved 12 million people in 400 years (yet likes to highlight slavery elsewhere in the world) is an attempt at excusing one evil for another. As I've seen here and offline a lot of whites I've discussed slavery with tend to use this argument which is relatively similar to how an eight year old responds when stealing a cookie. There is a failure to own up to an evil and typically this failure is followed ip by excuses.

Now that I have your attention. Maybe you will now answer the question I posed on another thread. One that you ignored.

What priviliges do I (as a white man) have that you don't have.

And please be specific.


BTW I haven't seen many whites trying to make that argument.

Do you know what percentage of slaves were brought to the "New World"?

You'd be surprised.

 

[squeeze berry]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

 

[Huey]

Common misconceptions in the "Africans sold their own to slavery" argument:

The is a difference between how Africans observed slavery and how North American whites viewed slavery. For 1) African slaves that were sold were enemies captured as "spoils of war" much like the Romans, Vikings, Spartans, Persians. The practice of slavery was not racist in nature but a product of warfare. Compared to North American white slavery was practiced to replace indentured servitude because they found that slavery economically was more viable than indentured servitude.

"Africans were the first to practice slavery"

First slaves were found in Sumeria Mesopotamia around 3,500 years ago, although slavery was practiced in Egypt, Assyria.

See: Beginning of Slavery, colonies

sorry you are wrong on that one,the Egyptians,then the Greeks and Romans were the first.

 

[Huey]

The slaves were treated very badly after slavery was outlawed.They were lynched by the kkk,they didn't have any basic freedoms.

 

[squeeze berry]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

And your point is?

he wants whitey to feel guilty

 

[Huey]

And your point is?

The point is any white person whether from America or Europe who use the derailment argument fail to acknowledge or refuses to acknowledge that Whites controlling the Transatlantic slave trade which enslaved 12 million people in 400 years (yet likes to highlight slavery elsewhere in the world) is an attempt at excusing one evil for another. As I've seen here and offline a lot of whites I've discussed slavery with tend to use this argument which is relatively similar to how an eight year old responds when stealing a cookie. There is a failure to own up to an evil and typically this failure is followed ip by excuses.

Now that I have your attention. Maybe you will now answer the question I posed on another thread. One that you ignored.

What priviliges do I (as a white man) have that you don't have.
you dont get profiled while driving.
here's plenty more but I dont have enough room.


When you go shopping you dont get followed thru the store by employees.
Your word is considered truth even when there are witnesses by popo.
you are not considered guilty because of the color of your skin.

 

[squeeze berry]

The point is any white person whether from America or Europe who use the derailment argument fail to acknowledge or refuses to acknowledge that Whites controlling the Transatlantic slave trade which enslaved 12 million people in 400 years (yet likes to highlight slavery elsewhere in the world) is an attempt at excusing one evil for another. As I've seen here and offline a lot of whites I've discussed slavery with tend to use this argument which is relatively similar to how an eight year old responds when stealing a cookie. There is a failure to own up to an evil and typically this failure is followed ip by excuses.

Now that I have your attention. Maybe you will now answer the question I posed on another thread. One that you ignored.

What priviliges do I (as a white man) have that you don't have.
you dont get profiled while driving.
here's plenty more but I dont have enough room.


When you go shopping you dont get followed thru the store by employees.
Your word is considered truth even when there are witnesses by popo.
you are not considered guilty because of the color of your skin.

full of shit ^

show us the laws

 

[ScienceRocks]

Point out one race that didn't practice slavery? Blaming the white man for it tells me that you have an agenda to get shit from him. The honest truth is the white man is the only race to think about human freedom enough to free you. Whites have done everthing in our power to make you people equals...Can you say the same for your kind????

This is how you repay him...

 

[Aristotle]

Matthew thanks for proving my point. No where near in this thread did I place blame. You also proved my refutation in deflecting. Read what I wrote

 

[Aristotle]

And your point is?

The point is any white person whether from America or Europe who use the derailment argument fail to acknowledge or refuses to acknowledge that Whites controlling the Transatlantic slave trade which enslaved 12 million people in 400 years (yet likes to highlight slavery elsewhere in the world) is an attempt at excusing one evil for another. As I've seen here and offline a lot of whites I've discussed slavery with tend to use this argument which is relatively similar to how an eight year old responds when stealing a cookie. There is a failure to own up to an evil and typically this failure is followed ip by excuses.

Now that I have your attention. Maybe you will now answer the question I posed on another thread. One that you ignored.

What priviliges do I (as a white man) have that you don't have.

And please be specific.


BTW I haven't seen many whites trying to make that argument.

Do you know what percentage of slaves were brought to the "New World"?

You'd be surprised.

Wtong thread pose your question in PM.

 

[syrenn]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

And for all of that


it still does not change the fact...

that it was africans going into the bush...capturing and selling other africans into the slave trade.


Did the whites trade in slaves..yes
Did the whites make slave trading into big business... yes


Bottom line.... it was afericans who sold other the afericans into slavery

 

[Ernie S.]

When discussing the history of slavery from Africa to the North America, the most common argument brought up is that Africans sold their own into slavery. It is not disputed that during the early 1600's (and earlier) slavery was a common commodity throughout Africa and the middle east. But what is most intriguing to me, is that in discussing slavery it appears that in hiding the guilt of the atrocities of slavery, many times people (mostly Caucasians) like to deflect this fact by stating that other cultures had slaves to.

As one had called it "The arab trade argument" in which when one argues that slavery happened elsewhere in the world, "it excuses an evil of one's own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too!" Which one may make the comparison of such to that of an eight-year old who may steal cookie from a cookie jar, but when busted the child says "well Jimmy did it too" one evil is not excusab;le by another evil.

However those who use the African selling their own argument fail to realize that in doing so, they are derailing the fact that in history the Transatlantic slave trade was the biggest most economical (and racist) aspect of Caucasian history when it comes to building their economic revenue off other human beings. The main purpose of using this derailing argument is to take attention away from what whites did by turning the tables. The part of slavery in Caucasian history and to those that benefited from it, makes Whites uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it, many have built a defense against it:

-Africans sold their own
Africans still selling slaves
-Arab traders sold slaves
All races practiced slavery
-Whites stopped slavery
-My family never owned slaves
-Slavery was the past
-Blacks are living in the past
-Get over it
-Whites got to where they are because of hard work
-Blacks are better off here than in Africa
-Africans were savages

And so on....

One of the fact that many proponents of this view forget to state was that in the times of the transatlantic slave trade most of the african countries did not sell slaves nor was it a common practice in West Africa. Folks forget that the transatlantic slave trade was on a much larger scale. Overy 12 million were sold into slavery in less than 400 years, something so large that it changed the "genetic map of the world."

And your point is?

The point is any white person whether from America or Europe who use the derailment argument fail to acknowledge or refuses to acknowledge that Whites controlling the Transatlantic slave trade which enslaved 12 million people in 400 years (yet likes to highlight slavery elsewhere in the world) is an attempt at excusing one evil for another. As I've seen here and offline a lot of whites I've discussed slavery with tend to use this argument which is relatively similar to how an eight year old responds when stealing a cookie. There is a failure to own up to an evil and typically this failure is followed ip by excuses.

Bush did it?