'Africans sold us into slavery'
Options
Huruma
Members Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
It doesn't bother me when anyone claims this but I've never understood the rationale behind it.
Let's say that there are (verbally) intelligent, sentient beings from Mars (I'll call them 'red' people) who come to Earth to purchase slaves. Iraq invades America and their captured war prisoners are sold to the red Martians (Iraqi criminals and Iraqis with long-standing debts, who might have already been slaves in Iraq, are also sold, some humans are kidnapped by the red Martians but the majority are sold by other humans for the previously mentioned reasons). China invades Brazil and their prisoners of war are sold to the red Martians, Nigeria raids Tanzania for slaves and the captured are sold to the red people etc. When the slaves arrive on Mars, they are forbidden to preserve any ties to any of the human cultures they came from, they are given Martian names, made to practice the Martian religion, speak Martian languages etc. As a result, over time, they develop new cultures that are distinct from both their ancestors Earth cultures and the native red Martian cultures. How does it make sense for these Martian humans ('Martian' because they were born on Mars, although not 'red' since their species is still human) to argue that Earthlings sold them into slavery when their enslaved ancestors were themselves Earthlings? To argue that Earthlings sold their ancestors into slavery implies that their ancestors sold themselves into slavery since their ancestors were themselves Earthlings (and not 'Earthling-Martian' since the human cultures that were developed on Mars had not yet been created). Their resenting Earthlings for having sold other Earthlings into slavery makes no sense because the people they resent Earthlings on behalf of were Earthlings themselves. Imagine one of the slaves escaping back to Earth and telling his cousin, friend, brother etc. "you Earthlings" (not you Iraq's, Chinese, Nigerians etc., or distinct individuals, but 'you Earthlings') sold me into slavery. It's not any less likely that any Earthling the Martian descendant of human slaves comes across is a distant cousin than it is that (s)he descends from someone who sold their ancestor into slavery.
What am I missing?
Let's say that there are (verbally) intelligent, sentient beings from Mars (I'll call them 'red' people) who come to Earth to purchase slaves. Iraq invades America and their captured war prisoners are sold to the red Martians (Iraqi criminals and Iraqis with long-standing debts, who might have already been slaves in Iraq, are also sold, some humans are kidnapped by the red Martians but the majority are sold by other humans for the previously mentioned reasons). China invades Brazil and their prisoners of war are sold to the red Martians, Nigeria raids Tanzania for slaves and the captured are sold to the red people etc. When the slaves arrive on Mars, they are forbidden to preserve any ties to any of the human cultures they came from, they are given Martian names, made to practice the Martian religion, speak Martian languages etc. As a result, over time, they develop new cultures that are distinct from both their ancestors Earth cultures and the native red Martian cultures. How does it make sense for these Martian humans ('Martian' because they were born on Mars, although not 'red' since their species is still human) to argue that Earthlings sold them into slavery when their enslaved ancestors were themselves Earthlings? To argue that Earthlings sold their ancestors into slavery implies that their ancestors sold themselves into slavery since their ancestors were themselves Earthlings (and not 'Earthling-Martian' since the human cultures that were developed on Mars had not yet been created). Their resenting Earthlings for having sold other Earthlings into slavery makes no sense because the people they resent Earthlings on behalf of were Earthlings themselves. Imagine one of the slaves escaping back to Earth and telling his cousin, friend, brother etc. "you Earthlings" (not you Iraq's, Chinese, Nigerians etc., or distinct individuals, but 'you Earthlings') sold me into slavery. It's not any less likely that any Earthling the Martian descendant of human slaves comes across is a distant cousin than it is that (s)he descends from someone who sold their ancestor into slavery.
What am I missing?
Comments
-
It doesn't bother me when anyone claims this but I've never understood the rationale behind it.
Let's say that there are (verbally) intelligent, sentient beings from Mars (I'll call them 'red' people) who come to Earth to purchase slaves. Iraq invades America and their captured war prisoners are sold to the red Martians (Iraqi criminals and Iraqis with long-standing debts, who might have already been slaves in Iraq, are also sold, some humans are kidnapped by the red Martians but the majority are sold by other humans for the previously mentioned reasons). China invades Brazil and their prisoners of war are sold to the red Martians, Nigeria raids Tanzania for slaves and the captured are sold to the red people etc. When the slaves arrive on Mars, they are forbidden to preserve any ties to any of the human cultures they came from, they are given Martian names, made to practice the Martian religion, speak Martian languages etc. As a result, over time, they develop new cultures that are distinct from both their ancestors Earth cultures and the native red Martian cultures. How does it make sense for these Martian humans ('Martian' because they were born on Mars, although not 'red' since their species is still human) to argue that Earthlings sold them into slavery when their enslaved ancestors were themselves Earthlings? To argue that Earthlings sold their ancestors into slavery implies that their ancestors sold themselves into slavery since their ancestors were themselves Earthlings (and not 'Earthling-Martian' since the human cultures that were developed on Mars had not yet been created). Their resenting Earthlings for having sold other Earthlings into slavery makes no sense because the people they resent Earthlings on behalf of were Earthlings themselves. Imagine one of the slaves escaping back to Earth and telling his cousin, friend, brother etc. "you Earthlings" (not you Iraq's, Chinese, Nigerians etc., or distinct individuals, but 'you Earthlings') sold me into slavery. It's not any more likely that any Earthling the Martian descendant of human slaves comes across is a distant cousin as it is that (s)he descends from someone who sold their ancestor into slavery.
What am I missing?
Why can't you hold resentment to someone or group that has done you wrong? Be it a relation, friend, ethnic group, why should that negate the negative feelings you have towards them? If your brother/mother/sister/father scammed you out of your pay cheque, would you not be resentful of them? If these same people abused you and sold you into slavery....wouldnt you naturally just as a human being with human emotions (forget about the esoteric stuff about being relations or whatever) resent them? -
It doesn't bother me when anyone claims this but I've never understood the rationale behind it.
Let's say that there are (verbally) intelligent, sentient beings from Mars (I'll call them 'red' people) who come to Earth to purchase slaves. Iraq invades America and their captured war prisoners are sold to the red Martians (Iraqi criminals and Iraqis with long-standing debts, who might have already been slaves in Iraq, are also sold, some humans are kidnapped by the red Martians but the majority are sold by other humans for the previously mentioned reasons). China invades Brazil and their prisoners of war are sold to the red Martians, Nigeria raids Tanzania for slaves and the captured are sold to the red people etc. When the slaves arrive on Mars, they are forbidden to preserve any ties to any of the human cultures they came from, they are given Martian names, made to practice the Martian religion, speak Martian languages etc. As a result, over time, they develop new cultures that are distinct from both their ancestors Earth cultures and the native red Martian cultures. How does it make sense for these Martian humans ('Martian' because they were born on Mars, although not 'red' since their species is still human) to argue that Earthlings sold them into slavery when their enslaved ancestors were themselves Earthlings? To argue that Earthlings sold their ancestors into slavery implies that their ancestors sold themselves into slavery since their ancestors were themselves Earthlings (and not 'Earthling-Martian' since the human cultures that were developed on Mars had not yet been created). Their resenting Earthlings for having sold other Earthlings into slavery makes no sense because the people they resent Earthlings on behalf of were Earthlings themselves. Imagine one of the slaves escaping back to Earth and telling his cousin, friend, brother etc. "you Earthlings" (not you Iraq's, Chinese, Nigerians etc., or distinct individuals, but 'you Earthlings') sold me into slavery. It's not any more likely that any Earthling the Martian descendant of human slaves comes across is a distant cousin as it is that (s)he descends from someone who sold their ancestor into slavery.
What am I missing?
The ability to think beyond this linear box you're in. The experience. The genetic trauma. Maybe you should ask the "original earthlings" who actually apologized on behalf of their ancestors.
Its just not something you will be able to grasp without letting go of some of your opinions and presuppositions. That would be necessary for you to put yourself in someone elses shoes. To start with, stop with the analogy because it really isn't accurate nor does it the cover even a fraction of the spectrum of how the descendants of chattel slaves view things. -
Why can't you hold resentment to someone or group that has done you wrong? Be it a relation, friend, ethnic group, why should that negate the negative feelings you have towards them? If your brother/mother/sister/father scammed you out of your pay cheque, would you not be resentful of them? If these same people abused you and sold you into slavery....wouldnt you naturally just as a human being with human emotions (forget about the esoteric stuff about being relations or whatever) resent them?
Yes but I wasn't arguing that it made no sense for Black Americans (or Black Caribbean people, Black Latinos, Siddis, Somali Bantu and Black Middle Easterners) to resent modern Africans on the basis that their ancestors were related to theirs (most slaves were not sold to Europeans, or Arabs, in the case of the Indian Ocean slave trade, by their relatives, they were sold by members of different ethnic groups) but on the basis that their ancestors were themselves Africans. I understand the concept of a Jewish person resenting Germans because Germans mistreated Jewish people during the Holocaust (even though that's 'irrational' for a completely different reason) but I don't understand the concept of someone resenting Germans for mistreating other Germans. If you resent Germans then why do you care if they mistreat other Germans?? It makes no sense because the people you resent Germans on behalf of belong to the same group that you resent. No German resents other Germans who have mistreated them on the basis of their being German since they're German themselves. It would be like someone robbing me and my resenting humans as a result, I am human so how can I resent someone on the basis of being human and not resent myself (I can make a generalization about most humans that I don't think applies to me but that has nothing to do with directly resenting humans on the basis of being human).
The African ancestors of a Black American who says something like '? those Africans, they sold us into slavery' would respond in the same way that modern Africans would. Why? Because they were Africans. They might not have identified as 'African' but Yoruba, Wolof, Mende, Kongo etc. all fall under 'African'. Never mind the fact that most Africans don't even come from cultures that had anything to do with the Atlantic slave trade (the Zulu, Shona, Luba, Chewa, Dinka, San, Hadza etc. people never sold slaves to Europeans).
Judah,
Do you or do you not have any concrete argument as to why this attitude actually makes sense or is it purely emotional/intuitive for you? -
Yes but I wasn't arguing that it made no sense for Black Americans (or Black Caribbean people, Black Latinos, Siddis, Somali Bantu and Black Middle Easterners) to resent modern Africans on the basis that their ancestors were related to theirs (most slaves were not sold to Europeans, or Arabs, in the case of the Indian Ocean slave trade, by their relatives, they were sold by members of different ethnic groups) but on the basis that their ancestors were themselves Africans. I understand the concept of a Jewish person resenting Germans because Germans mistreated Jewish people during the Holocaust (even though that's 'irrational' for a completely different reason) but I don't understand the concept of someone resenting Germans for mistreating other Germans. If you resent Germans then why do you care if they mistreat other Germans?? It makes no sense because the people you resent Germans on behalf of belong to the same group that you resent. No German resents other Germans who have mistreated them on the basis of their being German since they're German themselves. It would be like someone robbing me and my resenting humans as a result, I am human so how can I resent someone on the basis of being human and not resent myself (I can make a generalization about most humans that I don't think applies to me but that has nothing to do with directly resenting humans on the basis of being human).
The African ancestors of a Black American who says something like '? those Africans, they sold us into slavery' would respond in the same way that modern Africans would. Why? Because they were Africans. They might not have identified as 'African' but Yoruba, Wolof, Mende, Kongo etc. all fall under 'African'. Never mind the fact that most Africans don't even come from cultures that had anything to do with the Atlantic slave trade (the Zulu, Shona, Luba, Chewa, Dinka, San, Hadza etc. people never sold slaves to Europeans).
Judah,
Do you or do you not have any concrete argument as to why this attitude actually makes sense or is it purely emotional/intuitive for you?
The only concrete argument needed is the historical reality. And thats not how I personally feel but I understand.... -
i've seen this topic brought up on here b4 and all i can say is that, u or most of u africans obviously see this issue differently than the blacks whose ancestors have been through slavery.
Basically ? yall for that slavery ? , thats how i feel about it, i'll leave the other posters to break it down for u...but yeah ? yall -
Africans sold other africans becus it was already common practice to have endurted servitude and take prisoners of wars as slaves.It was just a common practice regardless them the Arabs came and the Europeans made it a business.
Thats why I say I dont beleive in none of that afrocentric,back to africa,? whitey ? ...Go where?to West African countries?Those ties have been broken and erased for centuries now.African and "of african descent" are two totally different things.
I dont give two ? about black history pre middle atlantic voyage..Thats them,Im me ..over here..descendant of a slave not african immigrant. -
'Africans sold us into slavery'
OKAY and...?
does that aileviate the atrocities we have endured for 400 plus year from Europeans??? -
Black people talk about the past too much..you guys stay living in the past.You sound ridicolous as ? ..
-
Paul Hate. wrote: »Black people talk about the past too much..you guys stay living in the past.You sound ridicolous as ? ..
quick question:
are most black people today in America highly uneducated living in poverty ? -
quick question:
are most black people today in America highly uneducated living in poverty ?
No.
Most blacks are above the poverty line and high school graduates.
Smh..you dont wana debate me,son. -
Princess Jihad wrote: »Those claims to me are made by people who don't do enough research.
There were Africans who sold other Africans, but did not know of the brutality of chattel slavery in the west. Most were probably under the impression that it was like indentured servitude. What people also don't say is that many leaders tried to get those who were sold back, but when they tried, it was too late.
^? .
Some africans that were involved in that trade traveled freely to slave colonies and back to their tribes in africa.They were aware of what was going on.You cant see a ship full of africans in chains and shackles and fortesses being built to house slaves in coastal areas and assume its for show.
Thats ? . -
People acting like slavery didn't exist before the TransAtlantic Slave Trade. Slavery, especially before the the discovery of the Americas did not necessarily have to do with color. It was based more on tribes
-
straightupsho wrote: »People acting like slavery didn't exist before the TransAtlantic Slave Trade. Slavery, especially before the the discovery of the Americas did not necessarily have to do with color. It was based more on tribes
Thats the one that pertains to us..blacks on this side of the planet.Idgaf about africans and whatever happepned before that tbh with u.Africans or not the same as diasporians.Two different groups ... -
On an unrelated note, slavery was worse in the Caribbean and South America than in the United States
-
Princess Jihad wrote: »*shrugs*
I doubt that most knew of the brutality of it, being that they didn't see slave plantations in the United States. It would make sense for them to understand that slave raiding was going on, but it wouldn't make sense that they understood the brutality of it. Also, there were Africans who did try to protect their communities from slave traders. Queen Nzinga was one African woman who tried to fight off traders. Personally, I think ? who overhype this "Africans sold us into slavery" are actually helping to detract from white surpremacy and white people's role in slavery.
They knew many cases and still didnt give a ? .Regardless they sold africans for mirrors to people that did not look like them.Tribal thing or no tribal thing.
And slavery didnt just occur in the southern united states.. -
straightupsho wrote: »On an unrelated note, slavery was worse in the Caribbean and South America than in the United States
^Depends on what point in time and what country.At one point Mexico had a million slaves.If were talking percent wise ration of african slaves to whites..Nobody beat Haiti. -
Africans and Afro-descendant people are not the same.Very few people from the west kept anything of their culture.Haitians kept the most but they are disconnected from the continet for the most part as well.
Idk why people give a ? so much anyways,you cant trace your roots and go all the way back so who gives a ? ?There is NO connection..Black History in the Americas starts with the mid atlantic voyage(yes there was blacks here before that but in small quantity..? ). -
Paul Hate. wrote: »^Depends on what point in time and what country.At one point Mexico had a million slaves.If were talking percent wise ration of african slaves to whites..Nobody beat Haiti.
I was talking more about Brutality but good point. And an interesting fact is that the majority of slaves in Haiti were foreign born -
Paul Hate. wrote: »Africans and Afro-descendant people are not the same.Very few people from the west kept anything of their culture.Haitians kept the most but they are disconnected from the continet for the most part as well.
Idk why people give a ? so much anyways,you cant trace your roots and go all the way back so who gives a ? ?There is NO connection..Black History in the Americas starts with the mid atlantic voyage(yes there was blacks here before that but in small quantity..? ).
The difference is that in America, slaveowners made sure that different tribes were mixed up, so Black Americans had no choice but to develop their own culture . This wasn't really the case in the Caribbean and Latin America -
Princess Jihad wrote: »Think about it, bro, without letting emotions cloud judgment. It still doesn't make logical sense how they could have known to the extent of chattel slavery when they lived thousands of miles on the other side of the world. They might have known that slave raids were going on, however, I don't logically see how anyone could have had in depth knowledge of chattel slavery at that time. Also, you act like all African leaders were selling people of. This isn't factual. Most slave raids were done without a tribe leader's knowledge and whites resorted to trickery and kidnapping to obtain most slaves.
Not saying i agree with Paul Hate, but chattel slavery existed in Africa -
Judah,
What is that supposed to mean? "It makes sense to resent Africans for selling *other* Africans into slavery because X Y Z". This is what I'm looking for.i've seen this topic brought up on here b4 and all i can say is that, u or most of u africans obviously see this issue differently than the blacks whose ancestors have been through slavery.
Basically ? yall for that slavery ? , thats how i feel about it, i'll leave the other posters to break it down for u...but yeah ? yall
I genuinely want to understand the logic behind this. And I doubt most Africans see the issue differently than Black Americans do, I represent myself, no one else. Contrary to popular belief, the overwhelming majority of Africans identify with Black Americans, at least in my personal observation and experience. Whenever I hear of an African say something like "yea, we sold them into slavery", a part of me assumes it's just a defense mechanism they use to convince themselves that they 'deserve' whatever discrimination or mistreatment they receive from Black Americans/West Indians (and I'm not denying this discrimination goes both way). If Africans had sold Black Americans/West Indians/Latinos into slavery then I could completely understand (even if disagree), but their victims were *other* Africans and obviously those African slaves didn't resent the Africans who enslaved them on the basis of their being African since they were African themselves...
Some African kings/queens fought against the slave trade, (Queen Nzinga comes to mind) and most African cultures had nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade since most of the slaves came from the Western African coast (the exception being Mozambique where many of the slaves taken to Brazil by the Portuguese came from).^? .
Some africans that were involved in that trade traveled freely to slave colonies and back to their tribes in africa.They were aware of what was going on.You cant see a ship full of africans in chains and shackles and fortesses being built to house slaves in coastal areas and assume its for show.
Thats ? .
Probably, although slavery in traditional African societies was different than the chattel slavery of the West.Africans sold other africans becus it was already common practice to have endurted servitude and take prisoners of wars as slaves.It was just a common practice regardless them the Arabs came and the Europeans made it a business.
Africans were never unique in having slaves. Besides hunter-gatherers, I'm almost certain that every,or almost every, culture in the world has traditionally practiced slavery. The Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs, (at least some) Native Americans, (at least some) south east Asians etc. all practiced slavery. Slavery, prior to the 19th century, was like eating meat. Future generations will recognize it as barbaric but for most of us today it's just 'the natural order of things'. -
straightupsho wrote: »I was talking more about Brutality but good point. And an interesting fact is that the majority of slaves in Haiti were foreign born
^They kept importing slaves to Haiti thats why.They also sold alot of slaves from Haiti to Puerto Rico.
Brutality as well depends on which country.The Spaniards,Ducth,French and Porteguese had more leniancy towards their offspring with slave women and their prefered sexual mistresses.They had a preference to free and deal with the mulato slave and unintentionally created a mulato/free person society.Some places like Cuba and PR slaves had side business and bought their freedom...other places like in the English colonies truly feared rebellion and revolt with Jamaica and the marroons,they tried to totally do away with the slaves african identity.
The English were the probably the worst. -
Paul Hate. wrote: »^They kept importing slaves to Haiti thats why.They also sold alot of slaves from Haiti to Puerto Rico.
Brutality as well depends on which country.The Spaniards,Ducth,French and Porteguese had more leniancy towards their offspring with slave women and their prefered sexual mistresses.They had a preference to free and deal with the mulato slave and unintentionally created a mulato/free person society.Some places like Cuba and PR slaves had side business and bought their freedom...other places like in the English colonies truly feared rebellion and revolt with Jamaica and the marroons,they tried to totally do away with the slaves african identity.
The English were the probably the worst.
The French were worse than the English by a bit i think. The Dutch were pretty unsuccessful with slavery tho lol -
Princess Jihad wrote: »If that's your argument, then I don't agree at all. From what I've read, "slavery" in Africa, if you could call it that, was NOTHING like the chattel slavery system in America where people were considered inhuman and shred of dignity.
its not an argument, its a fact. What? You thought white people created slavery? -
so people know how africans treated their slaves?
you been alive that long jihad?
how did they treat them?
what did they feed them since you know how every slave was treated
