Rubbish.
Dudley I know the ME and North Africa.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rubbish.
Dudley I know the ME and North Africa.
The local African rulers bought slaves to work in their mines, which was why the Dutch set up trading posts there in the first place, for the trade routes that met there and trade Dutch goods for gold and other goods.. Most of the slaves came from tribal wars to the southeast.What is now called Ghana was then the Gold Coast. Africans had been mining gold in that region for a long time.
These conversations always ignore that it was the Arabs who set up the slave markets, routes and economy in West Africa. The white-right always wants to shift blame from themselves to black Africans. It's like one member of the gang points the fingers at the others as if he weren't also guilty.
Ah so you're saying you're deliberately lying? The book I posted has the Arab trade route maps, and the author's earlier works take the trade much further back than that.
The w. African slave route. Stop lying surada. Called the trans Saharan slave route.The Arabs were not involved in the West African slave trade. The Arabs didn't deal in massive numbers. They had no plantations for that kind of labor force nor could they feed huge numbers of slaves.
The w. African slave route. Stop lying surada. Called the trans Saharan slave route.
Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert.[4][5][6][7] The term Arab when used in historical documents often represented an ethnic term, as many of the “Arab” slave traders, such as Tippu Tip and others, were physically indistinguishable from the “Africans” whom they enslaved and sold. Due to the nature of the Arab slave trade, it is impossible to be precise about actual numbers.[8][9][10]
To a smaller degree, Arabs also enslaved Europeans. According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured between the 16th and 19th centuries by Barbary corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves.[11][12] These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages from Italy, Spain, Portugal and also from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland. They were also taken from ships stopped by the pirates.[13] The effects of these attacks was devastating: France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships. Long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants, because of frequent pirate attacks. Pirateraids discouraged settlement along the coast until the 19th century.[14][15]
The Arab slave trade originated before Islam and lasted more than a millennium.[25][26][27] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania,[28] Eritrea, Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Somalia, Turkeyand other parts of the Middle East[29] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic to the Far East.
Or....you could acknowledge your responsibility and endeavor to return them to their homes...with adequate compensation to cover the value you derived from their labors.
Or..you could use your position of power to rape them..and yes..if consent is not required it's rape....have some slave babies and prattle on about the plight of the black man and how you hate the very system that enables your sexually predatory behavior.
Jefferson picked the latter.
What did the OP attempt to do? Explain it was the Sumerians fault and the slave holding plantations were guiltless? Reads like justification to me.
Uh huh. The money derived from King Cotton..went somewhere, now didn't it? Indigo, rice, tobacco, truck crops. Not to mention all the construction....from home to shipping to roads..and on...and on....constructed by slave labor. The south was agrarian..and slave labor was the power that drove it...for 100+ years..from colonial days right up to 1860.What value do you think we received from their labor?
They didn't build anything. They picked cotton.
That's all.
They didn't build the railroads or work in the mines which are the industries that truly built this country.
Uh huh. The money derived from King Cotton..went somewhere, now didn't it? Indigo, rice, tobacco, truck crops. Not to mention all the construction....from home to shipping to roads..and on...and on....constructed by slave labor. The south was agrarian..and slave labor was the power that drove it...for 100+ years..from colonial days right up to 1860.
Patience douchnozzle. Not a hard task, in this case.Had you any grounding in history..and economics of the 18th-19th century--I'd not have to bother.C'mon fleegle. You made a claim. Back it up, or I will accept your laughing as a kameltoe harris type of surrender. You two cackle a lot alike.
Yup..take your advice, you stupid ass..the cotton gin was what made slavery economically viable. The cotton gin crowned King Cotton. Perhaps you might take some time to learn, instead of trying to fit history to your agenda..rather than the reverse.King cotton stayed in the South. The Industrial North is what generated the capital to build the country. Cotton, as a crop, was only truly profitable AFTER the cotton gin replaced the slaves. You should read more history because you are woefully ignorant.
Patience douchnozzle. Not a hard task, in this case.Had you any grounding in history..and economics of the 18th-19th century--I'd not have to bother.
Yup..take your advice, you stupid ass..the cotton gin was what made slavery economically viable. Cotton gin did not pick the cotton. Perhaps you might take some time to learn, instead of trying to fit history to your agenda..rather than the reverse.
LOl! You did note all the other stuff I noted besides cotton, right? BTW..cotton was never a loser..it just was not as big a winner until the gin. The point, which you have adroitly sidestepped..is that a great deal of money was generated by slavery..and that money floated everyone's boat--everyone except the slave.Yeah, the cotton gin wasn't available till around 1805. Until then cotton was a LOSER. So you only have 55 years where cotton was even profitable. That was my point, nimrod. And by profitable it set up the plantation owners quite well. They were able to lead lives of luxury, but notice how the South was Dependent on the industry of the North for pretty much everything. Hell the Southern States had to have the buttons for their militia uniforms made in the north.
Like I said. You don't know shit about the economics of cotton.
No matter, as you have clearly shown that you will bend the facts to bolster your alternate agenda--not much to say here~Cotton, as a crop, was only truly profitable AFTER the cotton gin replaced the slaves.
or, you could just shut up your whining about it and move on.Or....you could acknowledge your responsibility and endeavor to return them to their homes...with adequate compensation to cover the value you derived from their labors.
Or..you could use your position of power to rape them..and yes..if consent is not required it's rape....have some slave babies and prattle on about the plight of the black man and how you hate the very system that enables your sexually predatory behavior.
Jefferson picked the latter.
Does the truth hurt? Farrakhan DENIES Black Slavery ever existed or exists today. You know who he blames for BLACK SLAVERY? The JOOOS !!You know, only a white guy from one of the slave states would post something like that.