Chattel Slavery: Was there any worse atrocity in human history????
Options
Comments
-
tikingjcoleprince wrote:He's kinda right though. If we constantly cry about what our ancestors went through or what white people did to us in the past, we waste a ? ton of energy that could be put towards bettering our futures and maybe one day achieving equality.
you really think socio-political and economic equality exists?
if white supremacy is the problem, wouldn't it make sense to counter white supremacy with black supremacy? :kanye shrug: what do you think?kingblaze84 wrote:10 million? That's higher than what I heard but assuming you are right, TENS of millions of Native Americans were killed off in their own land. Not just that, they lost two continents to white folk. At least Africa is still run by Black people, Native Americans really don't have much control over their land anymore.
you have a source on that tens of millions of native americans were killed off?
As far as Africa "still run by Black people"....I'm not really sure I agree. Africa is a large continent with estimates of up to 1 billion people. To say Blacks run the continent seems a bit inaccurate when you have tens of millions of Arabs and Berbers in the North African Maghreb, tens of millions of Copts and Arabs in Egypt, the Arab and Black mixes in the Sahelian countries, 1 million Chinese people (estimate) across the continent, South Asians(Pakistanis, Indians) in Uganda and Kenya who are disproportionately wealthy compared to the indigenous population, then the Horn Africans, and then White Afrikaners and Coloureds in South Africa. Lastly, even in the Black majority countries they don't really run it like that.tikingjcoleprince wrote:The original inhabitants of India came from africa.
really? where in Africa did they come from?John Prewett wrote:And the whole lie that Islamic slavery was fine and dandy, while American slavery was the worst example of wickedness the world has ever seen is disgusting.
Never mind that White PROTESTANT dominated America had a big debate about slavery, .... had a war partially over slavery and ended legal slavery over a hundred years ago.
While the EXAMPLE of Mohammed HIMSELF still TODAY justifies/blesses slavery.
as much as I don't want to agree with you.. I have to co-sign this.
Arab-Islamic slavery lasted way longer and was way more brutal. Based on my research. Arab-Islamic slavery still goes on today...if we look at countries like Mauritania, Niger and Sudan.
should everyone with african traits be considered "african"?judahxulu wrote:hilarious...they got so many african traits..janklow wrote:Hispanic isn't black or Caucasian or any one race... you can be either black OR white and Hispanic at the same time.
trueits over: 2012! wrote:this is smoke'n'mirrors deceit, since all people in the history of planet earth, are related to Negroids
whether they are Caucasoid or Mongoloid.
I agree.and step wrote:There are Arabs who are Black. In fact the original stock of Arab is Black. If you know the history of that people and land mass.
nope!
less conjectureand step wrote:As these two began to wander back in that area mixing began, along with displacement( See Sudanese and the Blacks in the lower Arabian Peninsula) and you have a lighter skin Arab who was infected with the poison of his white ancestors.
more facts please -
stillmatic_01 wrote: »
Arab-Islamic slavery lasted way longer and was way more brutal. Based on my research. Arab-Islamic slavery still goes on today...if we look at countries like Mauritania, Niger and Sudan.
Based on your research? LOL. Your research is your beef with Islam and Christianity. Yeah there are a lot of Arabs in Niger. I know your African but if you think Arab slavery was more brutal than Western European then I got some ocean front property in Phoenix real cheap for sale. We called out Charles Jacob for that same ? lie he was spreading. That is a civil war in Sudan that has been raging for decades because the North and South couldn't agree on resource allocation. John Garang never brought up the issue of slavery when he was alive. White boys and their ? minions want to push the issue of slavery because they want to garner support for their mission to annex the South from the North and have access to the Oil reserves they found in the Sudan which some estimate might be bigger than Saudi Arabia. You fell for it.should everyone with african traits be considered "african"?
African is a term made up by outsiders to cause division among Black people. You fell for it.less conjecture
more facts please
I will take a short cut.
This book provides archeological, anthropological, and linguistic proof of the Black origin of Arabia. This is a scholarly treatise that is replete with sources that are verifiable through many sources.
In it you will find info about the Enki, the Ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, the Pre-Quranic Nabataeans and the Cult of Allah. You will also be shown the connection between the Nile Valley, Arabia, Mesopotamia. This is not a book for those who like ghetto scholarship because it validates their butt hurt feeling of how they feel about Euros and Arabs. This book provides serious scholarship and does not rely on racial cheerleading like most Afrocentric "researchers" do. If you are an intellectual coward then this is not for you(on both sides of the coin).
If you want facts like you claim, then peep it.
Our Land wasn't just the Nile Valley, Stillmatic. The Garden of Eden extended way further than the North Eastern coast of Africa -
well EVERYONE is from black guys if you take it all the way back. but let's operate in the modern world for now
Oh so you want to operate in the modern world now, but previously you want to talk about descent and who was from who. Gotcha. You put your foot in your mouth and did not like the taste.the problem with your last sentence is that you're basically coming around to agree with me there
The problem with this statement is that it is part of a paragraph that provides a larger context which if you extract the sentence it changes the meaning of what was said.
let me give you an example. If I say "My friend said ItsOver 2012 and Janklow were holding hands outside of a ? fitness center" and someone comes along and takes out "My friend said" it does not accurately portray what I said.
Besides, you actually agreed with me when you acknowledged Black Arabs. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »aw dam janklow, that was supposed to be my line!
The problem with this statement is that Janklow is pretty smart and you are stupid. -
the point about "operat[ing] in the modern world for now" is that we're not disputing some long-before black origin of these groups, we're talking about the racial category they inhabit now. if that's because they're not "real" and they're not black, it is what it istikingjcoleprince wrote: »the original inhabitants of india were blacks who arrived thousands of years ago. So they were most definitely black in the modern sense of the word. If anything, the non-black indians are the ones who aren't "real" indians, and are the ones who "national origin alone does not denote ethnicity" applies to.
no, what i want to do is not have to have the "everyone comes from black guys" discussion as if it's relevant on how the races are breaking down RIGHT NOW. it's established that all races come from black guys, but right now i am categorizing IndiansOh so you want to operate in the modern world now, but previously you want to talk about descent and who was from who. Gotcha. You put your foot in your mouth and did not like the taste.
not really. the paragraph has:The problem with this statement is that it is part of a paragraph that provides a larger context which if you extract the sentence it changes the meaning of what was said.
01. "The only thing questionable is how your trying to make a Black Arab into something other than what they are." my position on this is that you have non-Arab nations claiming to be Arabic (say, Somalia, if i recall correctly) and Arabic nations that have non-Arabic, black residents. if you want, boil it down to "being from an Arabic country doesn't make you an Arab."
02. "White people are not indigenous to that land. Never have been and never will be." which means we're either going back beyond what i'm talking about. so, okay.
03. "The people of those lands know they are not the original inhabitants of that land and they even reference it in their traditions." again, if Arabs from Arabic countries are not the original inhabitants, whatever. we're talking about a) who's an Arab and b) who's a white dude. it doesn't really matter if Arabs are the original inhabitants or not.
RE-READBesides, you actually agreed with me when you acknowledged Black Arabs. -
Im late to this discussion here. Good thread. Any worse atrocity? The biggest would be the imprisonment & oppression of the mind. The brutality, the ? , the beating, the branding, the stripping one away from his family, the isolation, the degradation, the predjudices, the labeling, the stereotyping, the seeing loved ones hanged, or mauled, kicked, treated inhumane, is nothing in comparison to the impression it leaves on the mind.
gotta check out for now. later. -
one long thread fulla smart ? !!!!
-
the point about "operat[ing] in the modern world for now" is that we're not disputing some long-before black origin of these groups, we're talking about the racial category they inhabit now. if that's because they're not "real" and they're not black, it is what it is
no, what i want to do is not have to have the "everyone comes from black guys" discussion as if it's relevant on how the races are breaking down RIGHT NOW. it's established that all races come from black guys, but right now i am categorizing Indians
And thats exactly where you are making a mistake. Indians are like hispanics almost, and can range from almost caucasian, to 100% black, and everything in between. So to categorize all 1.2 billion people as a single race is impossible. -
nah, this saves us time. white dudes, all of them!tikingjcoleprince wrote: »So to categorize all 1.2 billion people as a single race is impossible. -
nah, this saves us time. white dudes, all of them!
lol bruh call us what u want but don't call us white! Our country has so often, and for so long, been ? by the white man, and we are still considered by some rankings to be the poorest country in the world, calling us white is like kicking dirt in our face while we're still down! -
sorry, nation of white guys, it is what it is. but the thing is, there's lots of different KINDS of white guys, and you can probably unleash some invective at people who have been (or still are) ? your country on a national/ethnic level without me throwing out some disagreement.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »lol bruh call us what u want but don't call us white! Our country has so often, and for so long, been ? by the white man, and we are still considered by some rankings to be the poorest country in the world, calling us white is like kicking dirt in our face while we're still down! -
sorry, nation of white guys, it is what it is. but the thing is, there's lots of different KINDS of white guys, and you can probably unleash some invective at people who have been (or still are) ? your country on a national/ethnic level without me throwing out some disagreement.
How the hell are we white? Are you that ignorant that you think everyone is either black is white? screw that ? mayne, there's more to the world than that, and if you really want to get nit picky, most of the "black" people in america would be white too, considering most have white blood in them, and many probably have far more white blood than most indians. -
Based on your research? LOL. Your research is your beef with Islam and Christianity. Yeah there are a lot of Arabs in Niger. I know your African but if you think Arab slavery was more brutal than Western European then I got some ocean front property in Phoenix real cheap for sale. We called out Charles Jacob for that same ? lie he was spreading. That is a civil war in Sudan that has been raging for decades because the North and South couldn't agree on resource allocation. John Garang never brought up the issue of slavery when he was alive. White boys and their ? minions want to push the issue of slavery because they want to garner support for their mission to annex the South from the North and have access to the Oil reserves they found in the Sudan which some estimate might be bigger than Saudi Arabia. You fell for it.
An argument over what was/is worse accomplish nothing at all...so I will refrain for speaking on that. As far as the civil war in Sudan, it wasn't entirely about resource allocation. There were also racial, cultural, ethnic and religious factors and underpinnings to the conflict. The North and South were divided long before the discovery of oil in the 70s and It doesn't matter whether John Garang brought up the issue of slavery...because it was a fact that it was taking place. Garang was a nationalist leader he was too busy trying to organize his people militarily and politically to lead anti-slavery campaigns (others did that)
"White Boys and their ? minions pushing the issue of slavery"...how can you downplay the issue of South Sudanese enslavement whiles expecting others to acknowledge the enslavement of your ancestors. The way your coming across is that only Blacks in America suffering matters. You guys are not the only ones that have been enslaved..my father's tribe were enslaved and incorporated by the Ashanti (the largest of the Akan tribes)..so you guys don't have a patent on pain, suffering and erasing of ones culture and identity. Many other peoples were throughout history enslaved and identities wiped out and it goes on today..your not unique in that regard.
As far as the Sudan, the reason for the split had to due with as I said earlier the cultural, religious, racial differences between those that could be describe as "Arabs" and those that self-identify as "Africans". This led to disagreements on issues such as the implementation of Islamic Sharia Law across the country. Resource allocation might of been more a problem in the Darfur region when in and around 2002 or 2003 Darfuri rebel groups took up arms and rose up against the Central government based in Khartoum and in 2005 when the CPA (Comprenhensive Peace Agreement) was signed paving the way for self-determination of the South and referendums regarding other disputed regions. If you talk to Southerners three of the main issues they had with the NCP (formerly the NIF, the Northern Islamic Front) were 1) slavery 2) sharia 3) marginalizationAnd Step wrote:African is a term made up by outsiders to cause division among Black people. You fell for it.
The exact etymology of the word Africa is not clear or conclusive yet. So I fell for nothing. Plus let's not play semantics.And Step wrote:I will take a short cut.
This book provides archeological, anthropological, and linguistic proof of the Black origin of Arabia. This is a scholarly treatise that is replete with sources that are verifiable through many sources.
In it you will find info about the Enki, the Ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, the Pre-Quranic Nabataeans and the Cult of Allah. You will also be shown the connection between the Nile Valley, Arabia, Mesopotamia. This is not a book for those who like ghetto scholarship because it validates their butt hurt feeling of how they feel about Euros and Arabs. This book provides serious scholarship and does not rely on racial cheerleading like most Afrocentric "researchers" do. If you are an intellectual coward then this is not for you(on both sides of the coin).
If you want facts like you claim, then peep it.
Wesley Muhammad is a smart guy, very educated but he's deceptive. I don't think there are many in the so called "conscious community" that want it with him and he knows that. BTW he's not Black, he's MGM (multi-generational mixed) so it's funny he would write a book titled "Black Arabia". I'm on the fence with the thesis that "Arabia was Black" or the "Original Arabs were Black"...I think a clear and solid definition of "Black" and who is would need to be established first before arriving at a conclusion like that. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether Wesley Mu did that. Did he? "Black" is such an ambiguous and has no ethnological value so it becomes problematic when using it to label the ethnic and cultural origins of historical peoples.And Step wrote:Our Land wasn't just the Nile Valley, Stillmatic. The Garden of Eden extended way further than the North Eastern coast of Africa
I don't claim Nile Valley as my land. So speak for yourself. I also don't believe in the Biblical Garden of Eden...so miss me with that too.
I'm not from the Nile Valley region..I'm West African/Niger Congo peoples. But I do recognize I have common ancestry with those East Africans in the Nile Valley. -
no, everyone's either black, white or mongoloid. sorry that you're upset about being white, man.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »How the hell are we white? Are you that ignorant that you think everyone is either black is white? -
no, everyone's either black, white or mongoloid. sorry that you're upset about being white, man.
That's the stupidest thing i've ever heard. Never mind the fact that most of us have much more black blood in us than white, making us, if anything, black, in your classifications. But do thousands of years of separate culture and civilization mean nothing? Is it so hard for you to grasp, that although everyone may be genetically composed of those three races, there are hundreds of differences that can't be found by purely studying genes? Just because some of our ancestors long ago were white, and some were black, does not mean we are a part of either of those races. We are something different.
Maybe a simple analogy can help explain this to you. What do you get when you mix red and blue? Red? nope. Blue? nope. That's right, you get something different from either, purple, which is its own unique color with its own unique characteristics. -
never mind the fact that this sounds like a fictional claim from someone embarrassed to be whitetikingjcoleprince wrote: »Never mind the fact that most of us have much more black blood in us than white, making us, if anything, black, in your classifications.
yeah, it means you have national and/or ethnic background that are completely separate from race that help define your person and country. i'm sorry that you think it's all completely meaningless if you're white and not blacktikingjcoleprince wrote: »But do thousands of years of separate culture and civilization mean nothing?
yeah, i don't know why i think there's no distinction between white people. no... wait... i just said this earlier in the thread: "but the thing is, there's lots of different KINDS of white guys, and you can probably unleash some invective at people who have been (or still are) ? your country on a national/ethnic level without me throwing out some disagreement." it's almost like those hundreds of differences can exist between people who are of the same racial descent!tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Is it so hard for you to grasp, that although everyone may be genetically composed of those three races, there are hundreds of differences that can't be found by purely studying genes?
no, you're not. you're a white guy who is DEEPLY upset about being a white guy for reasons i don't understand, especially considering that you're claiming i'm making an argument i'm not. this is why i am getting some random color-based analogy trying to explain to me that everyone is a beautiful and unique snowflake when, oddly enough, the uniqueness of people is not affected by people belonging to the same race.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Just because some of our ancestors long ago were white, and some were black, does not mean we are a part of either of those races. We are something different.
but if you get EVER MORE ANGRY, maybe then i will suddenly agree with you? yeah, that'll work somehow. -
never mind the fact that this sounds like a fictional claim from someone embarrassed to be white
yeah, it means you have national and/or ethnic background that are completely separate from race that help define your person and country. i'm sorry that you think it's all completely meaningless if you're white and not black
yeah, i don't know why i think there's no distinction between white people. no... wait... i just said this earlier in the thread: "but the thing is, there's lots of different KINDS of white guys, and you can probably unleash some invective at people who have been (or still are) ? your country on a national/ethnic level without me throwing out some disagreement." it's almost like those hundreds of differences can exist between people who are of the same racial descent!
no, you're not. you're a white guy who is DEEPLY upset about being a white guy for reasons i don't understand, especially considering that you're claiming i'm making an argument i'm not. this is why i am getting some random color-based analogy trying to explain to me that everyone is a beautiful and unique snowflake when, oddly enough, the uniqueness of people is not affected by people belonging to the same race.
but if you get EVER MORE ANGRY, maybe then i will suddenly agree with you? yeah, that'll work somehow.
Nah, i'm not gonna try and show a blind man the truth. But I still don't understand how I can be called white when I have skin darker than most black people, elongated skull, thick lips, etc. etc. If you saw me on the street, you would never once think i'm white. I'm not tryna get "accepted" as black, because I consider myself Indian and am proud to be one, but I am offended at being called white, the race that's treated me and mine's like ? for so long.
Until you take a little walk through india and see the people, not just the upper-caste, rich indians portrayed in the media, I don't see how you can call my claim fictional. -
because that's your racial background, and you're listing traits that vary amongst all racial groups.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »But I still don't understand how I can be called white when I have skin darker than most black people, elongated skull, thick lips, etc. etc.
do you not look at all like you're of Indian descent? because if so...tikingjcoleprince wrote: »If you saw me on the street, you would never once think i'm white.
well, i guess i should repeat myself:tikingjcoleprince wrote: »-but I am offended at being called white, the race that's treated me and mine's like ? for so long.
"but the thing is, there's lots of different KINDS of white guys, and you can probably unleash some invective at people who have been (or still are) ? your country on a national/ethnic level without me throwing out some disagreement"
"but the thing is, there's lots of different KINDS of white guys, and you can probably unleash some invective at people who have been (or still are) ? your country on a national/ethnic level without me throwing out some disagreement"
"but the thing is, there's lots of different KINDS of white guys, and you can probably unleash some invective at people who have been (or still are) ? your country on a national/ethnic level without me throwing out some disagreement"
at some point you're going to actually read that part of my post
well, i don't see how you think my impression of Indians is solely based on "upper-caste, rich indians portrayed in the media," so i guess there are a lot of mysteries on the internet today.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Until you take a little walk through india and see the people, not just the upper-caste, rich indians portrayed in the media, I don't see how you can call my claim fictional. -
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011090414425/us/islam-in-america/how-sharia-undermines-western-justice.html?utm_source=Right+Side+News&utm_campaign=5ac22e75b9-daily-rss-newsletter&utm_medium=email
"? LITTLE SECRET: The real racism of Islam rears its ugly head in Libya
Posted: September 5, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam
Anti-Gaddafi jihadists are slaughtering black migrant workers, even if they are Muslims, simply because they are black, because Arab Muslims hate blacks." -
do you not look at all like you're of Indian descent? because if so...
well, i don't see how you think my impression of Indians is solely based on "upper-caste, rich indians portrayed in the media," so i guess there are a lot of mysteries on the internet today.
Depends on what you consider "of Indian descent." My features are very negroid, like the indians i posted pictures of earliertikingjcoleprince wrote: »
.
Most likely when you think of indians, you think of people that look like the following, so yeah, i do think that you, like most westerners, have a very slanted view of indians.
-
SL mods troll their own section now?
-
...or i think of Indians (or people of Indian descent) that i actually know,as opposed to the rich, upper-class Indians the MEDIA keeps cramming down my throat. it could be that.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »Most likely when you think of indians, you think of people that look like the following, so yeah, i do think that you, like most westerners, have a very slanted view of indians. -
...or i think of Indians (or people of Indian descent) that i actually know,as opposed to the rich, upper-class Indians the MEDIA keeps cramming down my throat. it could be that.
Unless you've traveled internationally, which you very well could have, and assuming you live in America, there is probably a 99% likely hood the indians you know ARE upper-caste, since very few non-upper-caste indians have the resources, or are legally permitted, to come here. -
correcttikingjcoleprince wrote: »Unless you've traveled internationally, which you very well could have-
USA USA USAtikingjcoleprince wrote: »-and assuming you live in America-
well, one, it's perhaps a mix of economic strata. two... i think a point being glossed over is the "portrayed in the media" part.tikingjcoleprince wrote: »-there is probably a 99% likely hood the indians you know ARE upper-caste, since very few non-upper-caste indians have the resources, or are legally permitted, to come here. -
its over: 2012! wrote: »What do you think of the reality that this Fed GOVT allows indians to rake in billions of $$$$$ via their casino revenues...while Blacks still peril in America's ghettos, with nothing, no imperatives no Aid no reparations no arrangements like reservaton-casinos?
I don't think I know enough to comment. But I do believe at this point in time, to compare the plight of one non-white race to the plight of another is useless and benefits no one. Anyone can make a case that his race is suffering the most at the hand of the white man, but arguing that does nothing to alleviate the suffering.
We've been talking about indians from India.
