independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Arab Slave Trade
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/02/20 1:38am

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

The Arab Slave Trade

71041086_2646819952196602_1795328773535040497_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=lSw--n9jicIAX8SQXR6&_nc_ht=scontent.fybz1-1.fna&_nc_tp=7&oh=5b57161ae4c14cf470e636b51a8a1392&oe=5F235477

This is not intended as any form of racial or religious slur. It simply serves to highlight the hypocrisy and double standards of those who are currently defacing, pulling down or calling for the destruction of any statue, building or monument in any way related to the abhorrent trading of black Africans into slavery (and sadly many that aren't). The Dome of the Rock (which is a monument, NOT a Mosque) was completed in 692CE, at a time when the Arab slave trade was in full flow. The Arabs were capturing, transporting and selling black Africans into slavery in the Middle East in vast numbers seven centuries before the Europeans set foot on the continent and ten centuries before the Transatlantic slave trade began, yet this building, one of the most recognisable in the world, goes unmentioned.

Many books and articles have been written on the Arab Slave Trade - here are just a few of them :

The Veiled Genocide - Tidiane N'Diaye
Slavery in the Arab World - Murray Gordon.
The East African Slave Trade: The History and Legacy of the Arab Slave Trade and Indian Ocean Slave Trade - Charles River Editors.
Recalling Africa's harrowing tale of its first Slavers, the Arabs - NewAfrican Magazine
Islam's Black Slaves - Ronald Segal

********************************

Something to think about hmmm

Edmonton, AB - canada
Mod Goddess of the SNIP & BAN Making Moves - OF4S
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/02/20 8:48am

jaawwnn

avatar

I'm sorry but the shitty statues to slavers aren't as beautiful as that shrine so it's not going to be a problem.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/02/20 9:52am

SantanaMaitrey
a

The shrine may not be a problem, but the fact that slavery still exists in Africa today is a problem.
O tempora! O mores!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/02/20 2:03pm

IanRG

SantanaMaitreya said:

The shrine may not be a problem, but the fact that slavery still exists in Africa today is a problem.

.

Slavery exists in all countries today and it is not restricted to the enslavement of any single race.

.

The same can be said throughout history.

.

To imagine that the Dome on the Rock is analgous to putting up a statue to General Lee put up as an afront to people seeking civil rights is missing the point.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/02/20 4:29pm

KoolEaze

avatar

Are you seriously comparing the Dome of the Rock to statues of slaveholders and segregationists?

Your analogy is weak.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/02/20 4:42pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

KoolEaze said:

Are you seriously comparing the Dome of the Rock to statues of slaveholders and segregationists?

Your analogy is weak.


Agreed.

"if your voice held no power, they wouldn't try to silence you."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/02/20 5:08pm

v10letblues

avatar

After 911 here in the US people (mostly on the right) were up in arms over a mosque being near ground zero. Innocent people and an entire religion were targeted.

Some of us (like me) pretend to be above it all, we are detached until....it involves you and things you care about.

Every country has shameful deeds on it's hands. We need to "try" and have measured responses. Some people have been treated far worse than others.

.

For some it's recent systematic racial injustices from Jim Crow laws that were finally removed in 1968

Others have to deal with "Happy Hollidays!" as a "war" on Christmas. Fox News is working tirelessly to remedy this, while being the biggest advocate of Trump and his racist agenda.

.

On step at a time, if we try, we will get things right.

[Edited 7/2/20 20:48pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/02/20 6:06pm

onlyforaminute

How do the descendants of that feel?
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/03/20 2:19am

deebee

avatar

KoolEaze said:

Are you seriously comparing the Dome of the Rock to statues of slaveholders and segregationists?

Your analogy is weak.

Judging by the logo on the pic, it would actually appear to be the Likud Party's analogy. (They shared the meme on their Twitter feed the other day.) And, from what I've seen, any and all crass racist generalisations about "the Arabs" as one big, brown, transhistorical bloc are deemed fair game in those circles.

It's a longstanding campaign, of course - as I know you know, but others may not. Orgers with long memories will remember Ariel Sharon's provocative strut around the site where the Dome of the Rock sits, back in 2000, in order to symbolically mark Israeli sovereignty over the area (as a dog pisses on its own patch to mark its territory). Seems from the pic that the latest effort in the extremist campaign to delegitimise Arab claims to their holy site has now been crudely hitched to a new wagon. It's to be hoped that more level heads look to promote mutual respect and tolerance when thinking through how to govern a site that is also quite legitimately revered by Jews for its religious significance, rather than instrumentalising black American struggles for propagandistic ends.

[Edited 7/3/20 2:28am]

"Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced." - James Baldwin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/03/20 3:49am

CherryMoon57

avatar

Another thing I recently discovered when looking into the history of slavery is that there used to be Native Americans and even African American slaveholders. I nearly fell of my chair when I read that.

It's interesting that many things are not so widely talked about, such as these. Scholars have argued that one reason for this is because slavery in colonial America was widely publicised by Hollywood and has long been a profitable source of income for the movie industry.

Life Matters
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/03/20 3:58am

jaawwnn

avatar

Well it's like first generation immigrants are often among the most racist in a community - when you're just one step away from being the next in line for the chop it's in your interests to blend in and shift the blame on others. Doesn't make it ok of course.

[Edited 7/3/20 4:00am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/03/20 4:29am

2elijah

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

Another thing I recently discovered when looking into the history of slavery is that there used to be Native Americans and even African American slaveholders. I nearly fell of my chair when I read that.

It's interesting that many things are not so widely talked about, such as these. Scholars have argued that one reason for this is because slavery in colonial America was widely publicised by Hollywood and has long been a profitable source of income for the movie industry.


Why would you have fell out of your chair over that? That’s never been a secret and that info isn’t hard to find. There were even Black and Native American Slaveholders during the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that had indentured slaves. Then there were the Cherokee who owned slaves. Every racial group has enslaved their own, even yours.

Native Americans had tribal wars with other Native American groups; and African ethnic groups had tribal wars with other African ethnic groups, and would take prisoners from rival groups, and keep them as slaves, but the treatment was nowhere compared to what happened to members of either of those two groups, when they were bought/sold/captured by European slave traders. And if you’re talking mass slavery, with slavery laws to back it up, Native Americans, Africans/Black did not write or pass the slavery laws of America or Europe, for which they were enslaved by.

But let’s not diminish the evils of slavery by the ‘well they did it to their own’ concept, to what happened to the enslaved in America or Europe, because that will not justify America’s or Europe’s hands in the slave trade, and how that affected the lives of so many Africans, Black Americans and Native Americans and their descendants. I’ll leave it at that, since this thread is about a monument questionable if it should be destroyed because the Arabs were involved in the Sub-Saharan slave trade.
[Edited 7/3/20 5:50am]
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/03/20 6:45am

CherryMoon57

avatar

2elijah said:

CherryMoon57 said:

Another thing I recently discovered when looking into the history of slavery is that there used to be Native Americans and even African American slaveholders. I nearly fell of my chair when I read that.

It's interesting that many things are not so widely talked about, such as these. Scholars have argued that one reason for this is because slavery in colonial America was widely publicised by Hollywood and has long been a profitable source of income for the movie industry.

Why would you have fell out of your chair over that? That’s never been a secret and that info isn’t hard to find. There were even Black and Native American Slaveholders during the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that had indentured slaves. Then there were the Cherokee who owned slaves. Every racial group has enslaved their own, even yours. Native Americans had tribal wars with other Native American groups; and African ethnic groups had tribal wars with other African ethnic groups, and would take prisoners from rival groups, and keep them as slaves, but the treatment was nowhere compared to what happened to members of either of those two groups, when they were bought/sold/captured by European slave traders. And if you’re talking mass slavery, with slavery laws to back it up, Native Americans, Africans/Black did not write or pass the slavery laws of America or Europe, for which they were enslaved by. But let’s not diminish the evils of slavery by the ‘well they did it to their own’ concept, to what happened to the enslaved in America or Europe, because that will not justify America’s or Europe’s hands in the slave trade, and how that affected the lives of so many Africans, Black Americans and Native Americans and their descendants. I’ll leave it at that, since this thread is about a monument questionable if it should be destroyed because the Arabs were involved in the Sub-Saharan slave trade. [Edited 7/3/20 5:50am]


Of course I know all that now. It just wasn't in our history books at school, and nor was the sub Saharan slave trade (even though like the OP noted, it happened on a bigger scale), that's all.

Life Matters
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 07/03/20 7:41am

CherryMoon57

avatar

Worth a read

'The 25th March was, as usual, commemorated as the day Britain officially abolished its Slave Trade in 1807. But how many recall that Arab slavers were the first, and last, in modern times to ship millions of Africans out of the continent as slaves? And that Arab slavers preferred more African women to men? We revisit our archives for this insightful reminder by George Pavlu.'

https://newafricanmagazine.com/16616/


Life Matters
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 07/03/20 7:54am

benni

avatar

The reason why I think statues to slave owners and confederate leaders should be taken down and stored in a museum: These statues weren't built for historical prosperity, but were rather built due to racist ideas and to highlight white supremacy. They do serve a historical purpose today, but due to the history of the statues themselves (the reason they were built), they should not be in a place of prominence in society, serving as a reminder to black Americans of their "white superior masters". I'm sorry, but they need to come down.

NPR has a good article about these statues: https://www.npr.org/2017/...ist-future

"Most of the people who were involved in erecting the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past," said Jane Dailey, an associate professor of history at the University of Chicago."But were rather, erecting them toward a white supremacist future."

The most recent comprehensive study of Confederate statues and monuments across the country was published by the Southern Poverty Law Center last year. A look at this chart shows huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s. Both were times of extreme civil rights tension.

southern-poverty-law-center_wide-8dd59c84cdf1835e87d11d69ad98e7c1dc119a02-s800-c85.png

In the early 1900s, states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black Americans. In the middle part of the century, the civil rights movement pushed back against that segregation.

James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, says that the increase in statues and monuments was clearly meant to send a message.

"These statues were meant to create legitimate garb for white supremacy," Grossman said. "Why would you put a statue of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson in 1948 in Baltimore?"




[Edited 7/3/20 8:03am]

@GeorgeTrue1 -- Alex's Jones's Razor - it's not that sharp
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 07/03/20 9:17am

2elijah

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:



2elijah said:


CherryMoon57 said:

Another thing I recently discovered when looking into the history of slavery is that there used to be Native Americans and even African American slaveholders. I nearly fell of my chair when I read that.

It's interesting that many things are not so widely talked about, such as these. Scholars have argued that one reason for this is because slavery in colonial America was widely publicised by Hollywood and has long been a profitable source of income for the movie industry.



Why would you have fell out of your chair over that? That’s never been a secret and that info isn’t hard to find. There were even Black and Native American Slaveholders during the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that had indentured slaves. Then there were the Cherokee who owned slaves. Every racial group has enslaved their own, even yours. Native Americans had tribal wars with other Native American groups; and African ethnic groups had tribal wars with other African ethnic groups, and would take prisoners from rival groups, and keep them as slaves, but the treatment was nowhere compared to what happened to members of either of those two groups, when they were bought/sold/captured by European slave traders. And if you’re talking mass slavery, with slavery laws to back it up, Native Americans, Africans/Black did not write or pass the slavery laws of America or Europe, for which they were enslaved by. But let’s not diminish the evils of slavery by the ‘well they did it to their own’ concept, to what happened to the enslaved in America or Europe, because that will not justify America’s or Europe’s hands in the slave trade, and how that affected the lives of so many Africans, Black Americans and Native Americans and their descendants. I’ll leave it at that, since this thread is about a monument questionable if it should be destroyed because the Arabs were involved in the Sub-Saharan slave trade. [Edited 7/3/20 5:50am]


Of course I know all that now. It just wasn't in our history books at school, and nor was the sub Saharan slave trade (even though like the OP noted, it happened on a bigger scale), that's all.


Yes it happened on a large scale and was before the trans-Atlantic slavery trade. But how can you measure pain/abuse by which country or racial ethnic group bought/traded less or more slaves?

It’s the inhumanity of it that affected so many lives and even how the pain of it trickled down to their descendants. I often find that many have tried to compare the slavery crimes of one group or country vs another, (not saying you) by who traded or owned more slaves. That in and of itself does not lessen or justify any of the crimes any one of them committed against a people.

Every country who enslaved those in the past, is solely responsible for the abuse imposed on those enslaved, including foreigners who invaded lands not owned by them, and participated/profited from enslavement. This is why I can’t see statues honored in the name of those who took part in rape, butchery of children/adults, abuse and genocidal crimes.
[Edited 7/3/20 12:05pm]
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 07/03/20 9:21am

CherryMoon57

avatar

This is an interesting article, in relation to the point I think the OP was trying to make:

https://www.libdemvoice.o...64896.html

'If we fight for something, the prize must always be worth winning. We are quite right to stand up for everyone’s life to matter, not just black people’s. But if we do so in a way that threatens to break society, are we not engaging in a form of killing the goose that lays the golden egg? Or at least sawing off the branch we’re sitting on?

The problem with Sunday’s vigilante action* is that, if that’s OK, then anything is OK as long as you can justify it to yourself. We know that climate change is a massive issue, but does that mean we have the right to tear down petrol stations? We know that paedophilia is wrong and needs to be rooted out, but remember what happened when a tabloid called for its readers to publicly out paedophiles? – it ended up with respected paediatricians being demonised because some people couldn’t spell.

There’s also the issue of historical perspective. Those of us involved in politics need to decide what we feel most needs changing, and build consensus to change it. That may mean compromising on things that aren’t top of our priority list. If we’re too militant against, say, car driving in our fight against climate change, we will lose a lot of reasonable people who can help us win important battles. Yet 50 years from now, our tolerance of greenhouse-gas-emitting mobility could be levelled against us, just as if we’d profited from slavery or opposed votes for women.

That’s why we have to be so careful not to apply today’s morality to people like Cecil Rhodes, Edward Colston and others. It doesn’t mean we approve of slavery or imperialism – far from it. But we mustn’t forget the climate in which such people operated, and what was considered acceptable practice at the time. We need to learn from those times, not condemn people from our armchair of history – and pretend our generation isn’t guilty of crimes that will be held against us by our descendants.'

*This story relates to the toppling down of Edward Colston's statue into a harbour during a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol on June 7th. A man is currently being held for criminal damage. https://www.bbc.co.uk/new...l-53258535

[Edited 7/3/20 9:27am]

Life Matters
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 07/03/20 10:03am

SantanaMaitrey
a

2elijah said:

CherryMoon57 said:



2elijah said:


CherryMoon57 said:

Another thing I recently discovered when looking into the history of slavery is that there used to be Native Americans and even African American slaveholders. I nearly fell of my chair when I read that.

It's interesting that many things are not so widely talked about, such as these. Scholars have argued that one reason for this is because slavery in colonial America was widely publicised by Hollywood and has long been a profitable source of income for the movie industry.



Why would you have fell out of your chair over that? That’s never been a secret and that info isn’t hard to find. There were even Black and Native American Slaveholders during the trans-Atlantic slave trade, that had indentured slaves. Then there were the Cherokee who owned slaves. Every racial group has enslaved their own, even yours. Native Americans had tribal wars with other Native American groups; and African ethnic groups had tribal wars with other African ethnic groups, and would take prisoners from rival groups, and keep them as slaves, but the treatment was nowhere compared to what happened to members of either of those two groups, when they were bought/sold/captured by European slave traders. And if you’re talking mass slavery, with slavery laws to back it up, Native Americans, Africans/Black did not write or pass the slavery laws of America or Europe, for which they were enslaved by. But let’s not diminish the evils of slavery by the ‘well they did it to their own’ concept, to what happened to the enslaved in America or Europe, because that will not justify America’s or Europe’s hands in the slave trade, and how that affected the lives of so many Africans, Black Americans and Native Americans and their descendants. I’ll leave it at that, since this thread is about a monument questionable if it should be destroyed because the Arabs were involved in the Sub-Saharan slave trade. [Edited 7/3/20 5:50am]


Of course I know all that now. It just wasn't in our history books at school, and nor was the sub Saharan slave trade (even though like the OP noted, it happened on a bigger scale), that's all.


It happened in a large scale and was before the trans-Atlantic slavery trade. You also can’t measure pain by which country or racial ethnic group bought/traded less or more slaves. It’s the inhumanity of it that affected so many lives and even how the pain of it trickled down to their descendants. Not saying you, but I often find that many have tried to compare the slavery crimes of one group or country vs another, by who traded or owned more slaves. That in and of itself does not excuse or justify any of the crimes any one of them committed against a people or religious group. Especially when you have living descendants of those who were enslaved in the past, carrying the surnames of the slaveowners that owned their families.

Every country/continent is responsible solely for the abuse imposed on the enslaved in the past, including those who were abused/attacked by foreigners who entered their land, and killed natives of said land.


Yet find

Absolutely true! And that's why it is remarkable that Europe and North America are so concerned with the dark parts of their history while Arabian countries are silent. Like I said, slavery still exists in the world today. And it exists in Arabian and African countries. In Holland we have soccer players who speak against racism while they get ready for the World Cup in Qatar in stadiums built by workers who are treated like slaves.
O tempora! O mores!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 07/03/20 10:33am

jaawwnn

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

This is an interesting article, in relation to the point I think the OP was trying to make:

https://www.libdemvoice.o...64896.html

'If we fight for something, the prize must always be worth winning. We are quite right to stand up for everyone’s life to matter, not just black people’s. But if we do so in a way that threatens to break society, are we not engaging in a form of killing the goose that lays the golden egg? Or at least sawing off the branch we’re sitting on?

The problem with Sunday’s vigilante action* is that, if that’s OK, then anything is OK as long as you can justify it to yourself. We know that climate change is a massive issue, but does that mean we have the right to tear down petrol stations? We know that paedophilia is wrong and needs to be rooted out, but remember what happened when a tabloid called for its readers to publicly out paedophiles? – it ended up with respected paediatricians being demonised because some people couldn’t spell.

There’s also the issue of historical perspective. Those of us involved in politics need to decide what we feel most needs changing, and build consensus to change it. That may mean compromising on things that aren’t top of our priority list. If we’re too militant against, say, car driving in our fight against climate change, we will lose a lot of reasonable people who can help us win important battles. Yet 50 years from now, our tolerance of greenhouse-gas-emitting mobility could be levelled against us, just as if we’d profited from slavery or opposed votes for women.

That’s why we have to be so careful not to apply today’s morality to people like Cecil Rhodes, Edward Colston and others. It doesn’t mean we approve of slavery or imperialism – far from it. But we mustn’t forget the climate in which such people operated, and what was considered acceptable practice at the time. We need to learn from those times, not condemn people from our armchair of history – and pretend our generation isn’t guilty of crimes that will be held against us by our descendants.'

*This story relates to the toppling down of Edward Colston's statue into a harbour during a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol on June 7th. A man is currently being held for criminal damage. https://www.bbc.co.uk/new...l-53258535

[Edited 7/3/20 9:27am]

Nothing ever happens neatly in the way these people describe. The worst thing about the toppling of statues of slavers is that people feel so disempowered all they're only able to topple are the symbols of oppression rather than the institutions.

If Ireland or America had followed all the rules and made sure they were polite at all times like the people who write these articles always call for they'd both still be colonies of the UK. And yeah, 50 years from now our tolerance for greenhouse-gas-emitting mobility will be held against us, and the statues that are built will be to those who opposed it, not to those who tutted and wrung their hands at the incivility of it all.

We should absolutely apply todays morality to whatever statues we have up and if someone wants to defend statues to slavers then they should do it straight out instead of talking around it in a mealy mouthed fashion.

[Edited 7/3/20 11:10am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 07/03/20 11:16am

SantanaMaitrey
a

jaawwnn said:



CherryMoon57 said:


This is an interesting article, in relation to the point I think the OP was trying to make:

https://www.libdemvoice.o...64896.html


'If we fight for something, the prize must always be worth winning. We are quite right to stand up for everyone’s life to matter, not just black people’s. But if we do so in a way that threatens to break society, are we not engaging in a form of killing the goose that lays the golden egg? Or at least sawing off the branch we’re sitting on?


The problem with Sunday’s vigilante action* is that, if that’s OK, then anything is OK as long as you can justify it to yourself. We know that climate change is a massive issue, but does that mean we have the right to tear down petrol stations? We know that paedophilia is wrong and needs to be rooted out, but remember what happened when a tabloid called for its readers to publicly out paedophiles? – it ended up with respected paediatricians being demonised because some people couldn’t spell.


There’s also the issue of historical perspective. Those of us involved in politics need to decide what we feel most needs changing, and build consensus to change it. That may mean compromising on things that aren’t top of our priority list. If we’re too militant against, say, car driving in our fight against climate change, we will lose a lot of reasonable people who can help us win important battles. Yet 50 years from now, our tolerance of greenhouse-gas-emitting mobility could be levelled against us, just as if we’d profited from slavery or opposed votes for women.

That’s why we have to be so careful not to apply today’s morality to people like Cecil Rhodes, Edward Colston and others. It doesn’t mean we approve of slavery or imperialism – far from it. But we mustn’t forget the climate in which such people operated, and what was considered acceptable practice at the time. We need to learn from those times, not condemn people from our armchair of history – and pretend our generation isn’t guilty of crimes that will be held against us by our descendants.'

*This story relates to the toppling down of Edward Colston's statue into a harbour during a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol on June 7th. A man is currently being held for criminal damage. https://www.bbc.co.uk/new...l-53258535


[Edited 7/3/20 9:27am]



Nothing ever happens neatly in the way these people describe. The worst thing about the toppling of statues of slavers is that people feel so disempowered all they're only able to topple are the symbols of oppression rather than the institutions.

If Ireland or America had followed all the rules and made sure they were polite at all times they'd both still be colonies of the UK.

We should absolutely apply todays morality to whatever statues we have up and if someone wants to defend statues to slavers then they should do it straight out instead of talking around it in a mealy mouthed fashion.


Really? What IS today's morality? Churchill was a racist? He grew up in the 19th century with all the ideas and prejudice of that era. Are we going to hold that against him even though he did more than anybody to fight the Nazis? And was right about the dangers of Communism? He was the one who coined the term Iron Curtain. If you apply today's standards to historical figures, then they're all going to fail. Then the statue of Richard the Lionhearted would also have to be overthrown. But let's just, for the sake of argument, apply the standard of the past to the present. What if Richard the Lionhearted, Winston Churchill and Horatio Nelson were to see us today? They would think we're a bunch of woosies and pussys.
[Edited 7/3/20 11:17am]
[Edited 7/3/20 11:21am]
[Edited 7/3/20 11:22am]
O tempora! O mores!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 07/03/20 11:32am

CherryMoon57

avatar

SantanaMaitreya said:

jaawwnn said:

Nothing ever happens neatly in the way these people describe. The worst thing about the toppling of statues of slavers is that people feel so disempowered all they're only able to topple are the symbols of oppression rather than the institutions.

If Ireland or America had followed all the rules and made sure they were polite at all times they'd both still be colonies of the UK.

We should absolutely apply todays morality to whatever statues we have up and if someone wants to defend statues to slavers then they should do it straight out instead of talking around it in a mealy mouthed fashion.

Really? What IS today's morality? Churchill was a racist? He grew up in the 19th century with all the ideas and prejudice of that era. Are we going to hold that against him even though he did more than anybody to fight the Nazis? And was right about the dangers of Communism? He was the one who coined the term Iron Curtain. If you apply today's standards to historical figures, then they're all going to fail. Then the statue of Richard the Lionhearted would also have to be overthrown. But let's just, for the sake of argument, apply the standard of the past to the present. What if Richard the Lionhearted, Winston Churchill and Horatio Nelson were to see us today? They would think we're a bunch of woosies and pussys. [Edited 7/3/20 11:17am] [Edited 7/3/20 11:21am] [Edited 7/3/20 11:22am]


yeahthat

Life Matters
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 07/03/20 12:15pm

2elijah

avatar

SantanaMaitreya said:

2elijah said:


It happened in a large scale and was before the trans-Atlantic slavery trade. You also can’t measure pain by which country or racial ethnic group bought/traded less or more slaves. It’s the inhumanity of it that affected so many lives and even how the pain of it trickled down to their descendants. Not saying you, but I often find that many have tried to compare the slavery crimes of one group or country vs another, by who traded or owned more slaves. That in and of itself does not excuse or justify any of the crimes any one of them committed against a people or religious group. Especially when you have living descendants of those who were enslaved in the past, carrying the surnames of the slaveowners that owned their families.

Every country/continent is responsible solely for the abuse imposed on the enslaved in the past, including those who were abused/attacked by foreigners who entered their land, and killed natives of said land.


Yet find

Absolutely true! And that's why it is remarkable that Europe and North America are so concerned with the dark parts of their history while Arabian countries are silent. Like I said, slavery still exists in the world today. And it exists in Arabian and African countries. In Holland we have soccer players who speak against racism while they get ready for the World Cup in Qatar in stadiums built by workers who are treated like slaves.

I agree that slavery still exists around the world. Slavery has never really gone away. It’s been upgraded to different forms, in different countries, but in my view, statues should not be erected to honor those who committed/participated in rape, slavery and genocide.
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 07/03/20 11:24pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

KoolEaze said:

Are you seriously comparing the Dome of the Rock to statues of slaveholders and segregationists?

Your analogy is weak.


Agreed.


Yeah, it's apples and onions. People visit Jefferson's home, should it be torn down? Should the liberty bell be melted down? I mean, it's a weird call but not really a realistic comparison. Dome of the Rock was built by people with shitty attitudes, but it's a temple, a shrine. It's not a monument to slavery.

A damn statue of Christopher Columbus, Lincoln over an enslaved man on all 4s, etc does nothing but remind people what assholes they were.

Hell, even the white house or most capital buildings were built by enslaved people.

Just when U think U've got more than enough, that's when it all up and flies away.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 07/04/20 5:48am

KoolEaze

avatar

deebee said:

KoolEaze said:

Are you seriously comparing the Dome of the Rock to statues of slaveholders and segregationists?

Your analogy is weak.

Judging by the logo on the pic, it would actually appear to be the Likud Party's analogy. (They shared the meme on their Twitter feed the other day.) And, from what I've seen, any and all crass racist generalisations about "the Arabs" as one big, brown, transhistorical bloc are deemed fair game in those circles.

It's a longstanding campaign, of course - as I know you know, but others may not. Orgers with long memories will remember Ariel Sharon's provocative strut around the site where the Dome of the Rock sits, back in 2000, in order to symbolically mark Israeli sovereignty over the area (as a dog pisses on its own patch to mark its territory). Seems from the pic that the latest effort in the extremist campaign to delegitimise Arab claims to their holy site has now been crudely hitched to a new wagon. It's to be hoped that more level heads look to promote mutual respect and tolerance when thinking through how to govern a site that is also quite legitimately revered by Jews for its religious significance, rather than instrumentalising black American struggles for propagandistic ends.

[Edited 7/3/20 2:28am]

What I´ve seen in the past couple of years, and especially since 9/11, is that the lines are getting more and more blurred as far as political leanings are concerned. For example, Bibi Netanyahu´s son Yair has connections to the German rightwing AfD party and is known for posting very controversial and racist things on Twitter, which has often got him in troube. I´m just saying that these days the political pigeonholing is rather complicated, and I see more and more Jews joining forces with right wing or even antisemitic politicians while at the same time they rightfully complain about an increase in rightwing parties and politics and antisemitism.

.

In a nutshell, and I know this view is very reduced and boiled down to the basics, we can say that in the 1960s and all the way up until the 1980s Jewish-Americans and African Americans more or less supported each other, especially so during the Civil Rights Movement era in the mid to late 60s, and we all know now how Richard Nixon really felt about Jews, so it´s not exaggerated to say that antisemitism was still big in the USA but then I noticed a shift and saw more and more right leaning Jews who supported the right and conservatives because of Israel.

.

But they were still aware of the fact that the conservatives and Evangelicals were not necessarily very fond of Jews and had other motives behind their support for Israel.

And around the late 1980s I noticed an interest in Islam among African Americans, especially in the HipHop world of the eastcoast/NYC with more and more rappers researching their West African Muslim roots, something that had already started in the 1960s and 70s but to a much smaller extent.

And I might be totally wrong but it seems to me that the right´s motivation to cut that link or interest and to raise awareness to the Arab slave trade has been increasing since the late 80s and early 90s....and I think some conservative circles in the US are very aware of that and felt uncomfortable when people like Ice Cube, Chuck D, Professor Griff, Lakim Shabazz, just to name a few, identified as Muslim or at least showed solidarity, even though it would be a stretch to call them Muslims. It´s almost as if they prefer black Americans to be more docile, more "American", more part of the mainstream, more "Christian", more ignorant about their cultural heritage, of which Islam is of course an important part.

This of course does not mean that all African Americans are of Muslim decent, some are but of course not all.

Add to that that most people in Muslim countries show solidarity with black people in America, and people like Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X are considered heroes in many Muslim countries, and rappers like Tupac and Ice Cube are admired among Muslim teenagers living in western countries.

And that´s something that some people feel uncomfortable about.

.

Of course all of this does not negate the fact that there was indeed an Arab slave trade that sold and bought African slaves but still, I think using the Dome of the Rock as a comparison is a bit of a stretch and in bad taste and is part of an effort to make "the Arabs" in general and "Muslims" in particular look bad.

But the Arab slave trade was centuries ago whereas the legal racial segragation in the US was still a thing just a few years before I was born.

And sure, the Arab slave trade was bad, maybe just as bad as the slave trade by the European slave traders but it seems to me that every time this topic comes up those who come up with it rather use it as a "See, they did it too, and even started earlier and went on longer than us white folks, so shut up!" rather than a sign of empathy and solidarity.

I´m not even defending or trying to sugarcoat the Arab slave trade or how they spread Islam, just saying that I question the motivation behind hinting at this fact and using the plight of black people as part of an anti-Arab agenda.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 07/04/20 7:37am

SantanaMaitrey
a

No, the Arab slave trade was not centuries ago. It's still happening.
O tempora! O mores!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 07/04/20 7:53am

KoolEaze

avatar

SantanaMaitreya said:

No, the Arab slave trade was not centuries ago. It's still happening.

Are you referring to Libya?

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 07/04/20 8:33am

SantanaMaitrey
a

KoolEaze said:



SantanaMaitreya said:


No, the Arab slave trade was not centuries ago. It's still happening.

Are you referring to Libya?


Yes. And the way workers are treated in the Gulf States. That may not be slavery in the true sense of the word, but it's not far from it. By the way, interesting view about the relationship between hip hop and islam, I hadn't looked at it like that. It's also a bit funny. The gangsta rap lifestyle is about as haram as it gets!
O tempora! O mores!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 07/04/20 8:34am

SantanaMaitrey
a

KoolEaze said:



SantanaMaitreya said:


No, the Arab slave trade was not centuries ago. It's still happening.

Are you referring to Libya?


Yes. And the way workers are treated in the Gulf States. That may not be slavery in the true sense of the word, but it's not far from it. By the way, interesting view about the relationship between hip hop and islam, I hadn't looked at it like that. It's also a bit funny. The gangsta rap lifestyle is about as haram as it gets!
O tempora! O mores!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 07/04/20 11:54am

KoolEaze

avatar

SantanaMaitreya said:

KoolEaze said:

Are you referring to Libya?

Yes. And the way workers are treated in the Gulf States. That may not be slavery in the true sense of the word, but it's not far from it. By the way, interesting view about the relationship between hip hop and islam, I hadn't looked at it like that. It's also a bit funny. The gangsta rap lifestyle is about as haram as it gets!

It indeed is but these days Islam is the new Punk or rebellion.....kind of. Probably one of many reasons why confused young, western kids join ISIS. Ice Cube once spoke about the hypocrisy of being a gangsta rapper and Muslim at the same time , and his view was that he identifies as Muslim even though he doesn´t really practice the religion and drinks alcohol and, to quote a line from one of his songs: " Ice Cube, eating all kinds of meat." wink including pork.

Totally agree about the situation in the Gulf states. I read an interesting article about it but unfortunately can´t find it right now.....had it even saved somewhere. It was about workers from Bangladesh and nannies from the Philippines. But you have that in many other countries as well, I don´t think it has to do with the religion. If those people took their religion seriously, they wouldn´t treat other people like that. Their prophet freed slaves , and the first person to sing the call to prayer was a black man named Bilal, a former slave, who was also one of the first Muslims and freed by Muhammad himself.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 07/04/20 11:56am

KoolEaze

avatar

SantanaMaitreya said:

KoolEaze said:

Are you referring to Libya?

Yes. And the way workers are treated in the Gulf States. That may not be slavery in the true sense of the word, but it's not far from it. By the way, interesting view about the relationship between hip hop and islam, I hadn't looked at it like that. It's also a bit funny. The gangsta rap lifestyle is about as haram as it gets!

And so is the lifestyle of many youngsters who identify as Muslims, including those who join ISIS. Far be it from me to defend religions but, if they truly practiced their religion the way it´s supposed to be practiced, then they wouldn´t behave the way they do.

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Arab Slave Trade