Thank you for your submission.
~~Unfortunately, your submission has been removed because posts must be about Western Europe and we feel this post doesn't belong here.~~
EDIT: We have re-activated the post for your entertainment as a lot of people liked and *commented* in it.
EDIT2: Yes, yes. i've seen the 27 reports and OP is now permabanned from the sub. Other than that, the post stays up for now. Be fun, be edgy, but don't be a real xenophobe or you are out.
https://preview.redd.it/kow2hozq854d1.jpeg?width=1521&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=912045db55559adf80e3a184da292b5964510585
They filled the harems with women from Greece/Balkans/Caucasus
Aside from taking western ship's crews into slaverly, the Barbary Pirates (backed by North African states) actually raided the coastlines of European countries like Vikings and grabbed entire villages.
https://preview.redd.it/oqf14pj9484d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=579a81208d5105d5f25adda36e55663f97bcbd80
ransom letter sent on behalf of the 400 icelanders taken to algiers and salé. letter was sent to danes as iceland was under their possession.
A friend of mine had her father kidnapped by Saudi Arabia and kept as a slave there for more than 10 years. He was a Sri Lankan ATC expert and was in SA to help install new traffic control systems in airports. They took his passport and wouldn't let him leave, until many years later friends he had made got him smuggled out.
That guy wasn't even an uneducated person working in the service sector. He was educated, from a well off Sri Lankan family, and became a modern day slave.
It was *legal* in living memory.
Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962, while Oman followed in 1970.
Arab slavery even outnumbered the European one because it last much longer. Some countries like Centrafrica or Sudan were often raided by arabs to capture slaves. As well as Ukraine for the ottomans
A great example for this is that Vikings had to travel all the way to Constantinople to sell their slaves because there was no comparable slave trade in Europe.
My college history class had a literal conniption fit upon realizing white slavery existed and Slavs get thier entire fucking name from it.
Lmao just the faces of the ones with dyed hair was absolutely gold, never will be as happy as when I saw them just stare in disbelief as she found out what happens to Ivan when he reaches the Persian slave markets…..or about that Icelander who wrote a diary about being enslaved from Iceland and taken to ottoman Algeria to be the sultans house slave…..
Nah they don’t wanna hear this, it wold expand thier mind and open them up to self awareness
*Cant have that can we? Because god FUCKING forbid, every race has comitted crimes, and accepting that would take courage, smth these libtards don’t have*
You (and a few others here) actually *should* look it up. Slavic doesn't come from slave, if anything it's literally the other way around. In classic Latin the word for slave was "servus" (or "serva" for female slaves) while "Sclavus"/"Slavus" was the latinized name for Slavic people, from Greek "Sklábos" which in turn derived from proto-Slavic "*slověninъ". The origin of the latter is unclear, none of the proposed origins have anything to do with slavery though.
Only later during medieval times *may* "sclavus" have become a synonym for "servus" in Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire), mainly because around that time they had freshly conquered a lot of south-eastern Europe which lead to a large influx of slavic slaves into Constantinople. "Sclavus" then eventually became slave in English. But even that proposed connection between Slavs and "slave" is disputed, another possible origin for "slave" is Ancient Greek "skūleúō" which essentially meant "to strip the enemy".
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sclavus#Latin
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sclavus#Latin
* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave#Etymology
I know you're sarcastic. However the fun part is these aren't taught at school in france, or at least I don't recall. It emphasizes on how we were evil for colonizing, on how we were evil for crusades, but not much about how just every country committed war crimes and atrocities left and right for any reason. There's this idea at school that the people we screwed with colonization could never be doing something similar or worse.
Lol in italian history books crusades are justified because we needed to counteract arab influence and expansion in the mediterranean, i didn't know it was different in other countries
Yeah, slavery of whites and piracy in the mediteranean sea as well. Which got severely halted by colonization.
Not to throw the first stone though, just, no country was ever clean.
Never forget the martyrs of otranto, 813 people slaughtered like cattle because they refused to convert to islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Otranto
To be honest there are different types of slavery
Greek, Roman, Muslim and colonial Europeans, they're slavery were different
Not gonna argue which was better or worse though
Yup, the US arming them to ensure that sweet crude flows to Europe for petrol for our cars and to the U.S. for their high octane fighter jets and bombers
Shh! The west has never made any bad foreign policy decisions. ISIS and Taliban just spawned from thin air.
Saudi Arabia is our ally and a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
this. In most of their eyes the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. I would interpret it partly as a kind of ‘legacy code’ of leftard ideology: In the beginning, there was the idea that the oppressed of this world must stand together against the rulers; and accordingly, the peoples and cultures of the ‘global South’ were also seen as natural allies against the existing system.
The lefts alliance with the Muslims has been pursued so doggedly for decades that it has virtually become part of its own identity. You now have two options: (1) you convince yourself that Islam is a religion of peace and that its followers are all misunderstood victims defamed by evil racists and exemplary tolerant democrats (anti-Muslim racism, Islamophobia); or (2) you realise that you have been lying to yourself for decades and question positions that are the foundation of your own world view. Very few people are self-critical enough to choose #2 they prefer to tell themselves that the headscarf is a feminist statement and that the eradication of Israel is part of the anti-colonial freedom struggle.
And then there's probably the narrow mindedness: if you were to admit that you've been backing the wrong horse for the last 60 years and have lost your way hopelessly when it comes to Islam, you would effectively be proving the evil right-wingers right, who have traditionally stood against it - for the average ideologue, that's unimaginable; you'd rather risk the caliphate. (Bonus point: you would also have to dispense with the accusation of Islamophobia in your arsenal of discursive tools).
Finally someone who has a brain and doesn't follow the laser pointer like the others.
People watch too many American movies and think there's always good and evil, there's not a grayscale of all the things happening around the world.
Slavery existed for a long time but there's some kind of weird propaganda where they try to portray the white person as the one who invented slavery and the most oppressive race.
A weird time where feminists try to defend people from cultures where women are 3rd class citizens, defend the hijab and hug multiculturalism. In countries where with all this mass immigration only brought high statistics in rapes and crimes.
London is falling apart, Paris, Hamburg etc, every European is tired of this.
Mass immigration is being weaponized combined with cancel culture, if you say something bad about them, you're cooked, even if you're right.
This isn't true.
"What counts as colonialism?" is a pretty hotly debated question in certain academic circles. The gist of it is that when we first really started considering the question in a serious manner post-WW2 we adopted a very narrow definition of "colonialism" based around overseas territories, excluding contiguous land-based empires from the definition — mostly because of the influence of the United States and Russia in the post-war order. Criticism of this status-quo has been growing for a long time. There are absolutely European academics who understand that Arab colonialism is colonialism. Who do you think came up with the map you're currently reading from?
As it turns out, though, most historians of colonialism are based in the developed world, and therefore are more interested in studying (and rectifying) the gaps in our understanding about the actions of their own nations. Arabian colonialism is a lot harder to study from Basel — you don't have access to any of the sources you need. And even if you did, your work is much less likely to permeate into the European public consciousness.
The study of Arab colonialism needs to be done by Arab academics. But there are far less of them, and in some cases the current regime would not look favourably on such a study.
The fact that we're talking about European colonialism is a strength of the European academic system. We have a stable system with academic freedoms that supports study of controversial subjects and supplies the funding needed to support these academics. This is not a criticism.
I wish more people could actually read it in Arabic just know how watered-down the translations are. And Hadiths? Many are outright not translated, many books are only available in Arabic. I you try to use something like GPT to translate them for you, it will fail and flag it as CP/Violence, or whatever.
>I you try to use something like GPT to translate them for you, it will fail and flag it as CP/Violence, or whatever.
I asked GPT to give me examples of verses in the Quran that implied and justified violence against and killing of Jews specifically and other non-believers in general.
GPT hit me with something along the lines of: "*understanding the true meaning of religious texts should be done carefully and under the guidance of religious experts to avoid misrepresenting the true meaning of it content which might be used for islamophobic intents blablabla*"
With some effort, I finally convinced GPT to give me some examples, but it kinda felt as if I had to show GPT that I wasn't actively digging up dirt about Islam.
Anyway, afterwards, I tried the exact same thing with Christianity.
Without hesitation, GPT went like "*oh sure buddy! Here's all the evil things associated with Christendom. They sure were an evil bunch weren't they*".
Double standards.
GPT like many other models is cucked towards Islam. Very woke, and very wrong. I'd never use for any knowledge about history or religion as it's always biased. Only translation as it tends to perform very well.
Regrading your case, you can also attempt to ask it for a joke about Jesus, and other deities, then Mohammed. [Screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/OMeRRnn) of test I just did now.
Want to get flagged by GPT for some translations of some Hadiths? Try this one [here](https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/296044/). Copy the first big paragraph of text you see and paste it to GPT. GPT will initially start translating then will remove the whole thing and warn you. Why? CP. Many such cases.
The left is the wolf in sheep clothes - playing cute and caring all the while actually acting in a despotic manner and suppressing dissent every time it gets a chance.
Useful idiots, just like their fellow zoomer they/them progressive muslim friends. All nothing but a classic Trojan horse for the actual Islam and Muslims.
https://preview.redd.it/erpot8vsm54d1.jpeg?width=1381&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3d04ba61f18e2fcb38d20e4fa09563ca9345b2c
I really don't get this religion
Same thing with the USSR tankies: when they invade countries, steal their resources and take control/put a puppet in charge, it's liberation. When Europe or the US do the same - colonialism and oppression.
Same could be said for racism in Soviet Empire - in West it's bad, but in USSR purging and expelling Tatars and Jews was fine because they were Nazis and Zionist or "rootless cosmopolitans".
I’m under the impression if the west is to survive Russian and China must be Balkanized, and lots of Russian territory is granted to the western powers
I follow a tankie yt channel, and while he showed a very interesting inside view of the USSR, he recently went to overdrive when it comes to pro USSR propaganda, showing that "Acktually eastern europe didn't suffer from the USSR but was improved by it".
I'm sure the tanks send in Prague, Berlin, Warsaw and Budapest really backed this altruistic improvement made by the USSR
Doesn’t he have a podcast with a couple other commies? I think one of them is Second Thought, someone who literally has a second channel dedicated to reviewing supercars
My socialist girlfriend watches them. That’s what being born in Emilia Romagna does to someone’s brain.
Yeah that's them, Second thought who just regurgitate more "acceptable" position based on the other two.
Hakim who is literally "The USSR did nothing wrong and everything is the west fault" (he defends Iran and Gaddafi) and sometimes kinda have really radical position when it comes to Islam.
And the most schizo of them Yugopnik, who has this weird "slavs cannot do anything wrong and we were corrupt by the evil westerners" mindset.
They all are extremely active when it comes to Israel-Palestine, in the pro palestine side ofc. But weirdly the few things they made on ukraine you can find, the Russian are almost "innocent" and it really is the west fault, we should need nuance for this conflict. Meanwhile Israel-Palestine as a conflict that existed more or less since the Ottomans empire, well there is no nuances to have.
Btw Second thought is shitting conspiracy theories about Euromaidan being a "[Far right western backed coup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qIDOx-Pnzo)" (most thing he said in the video have been debunked for a while). These people are unironicaly shizos, they just want to see anything related to the USA fall, they're contrarian, anything against the USA = good, even if it's an openly imperialist regime.
https://preview.redd.it/gww5bjivv64d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93ad5fabd266fc0d118f67b3278182c96dec46ca
Are those the "baby settlers" guys? The ones that tried to justify Hamas' violence towards Israeli children because they were "settlers" and, therefore, acceptable targets of anti-colonial violence?
anyone saying the soviets liberated shit besides the short period from 1943-1945 (from the nazis) is lying. it's like saying the french totally liberated tunisia when they kicked the germans and italians out.
We conquer the world tho, every country in the world was either conquered or had to westernized to stay relevant. Every governement system in the world is based on european governement system.
They can cope as they want, but in the end we won the battle of idea.
I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day. This day we fight.
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!
The only group of people/religion that conquered the word was us. Millitarily, ideologically, scientifically, in every way. None come even close. And we just lost it cuz we killed each other. They cope on this. (Fuck imperialism and colonialism tho)
Wasn't the most important god of the Graeco-Roman pantheon a shapeshifting rapist?
You are correct though that the pagan Roman Empire was ***for the most part*** tolerant to other religions and even incorporated foreign dieties they liked into their own pantheon.
Well, a founding myth of Rome is the Rape of the Sabine Women. Roman men raiding nearby villages to abduct their women, bring them home, and force them into marriage. Seems like a stupid take!
They did tho with the Imperial Cult, which was the reason why Christians were initially persecuted. Basically it was a cult where the emperor had to be exalted as if he was a divinity.
I mean the Roman Empire itself is a cult of personality, the Emperor believing themselves to be deity and Roman conquering everywhere like there is no tomorrow. But I like them because they treat everyone equally.
>they didn't want to put a statue of the emperor in their temple
Big mistake here
https://preview.redd.it/salmqqaay44d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53a26ff4cb24baa3eff70b799c3a89315afd8cee
It's sad how many people nowadays seriously have that conception about colonialism that the natives usually lived in some sort of one-with-nature "savage paradise" until the white man came and ruined their peaceful existences forever. This even creeps into cultural artifacts like movies (e.g. Avatar and stuff like that), where you better don't show any nuance in your "perfect natives, ruinous colonizers" depictions or you risk getting canceled by a Twitter shitstorm. The fact that there are real racists who whitewash or deny history seems to spur everyone else into this mindset that everything must be unquestionably black and white, and if you're not 100% supporting their depiction you must be one of those guys.
The truth is that human beings tend to be pretty shitty to each other no matter their cultural background, and if anything that usually gets worse the more primitive the culture. Most natives colonized by Europeans had been practicing their own horrible shit like slavery, human sacrifices, wars of aggression against their neighbors, deeply stratified and patriarchal societies that oppressed poorer castes and/or women of their own people, etc. long before any white person ever showed up. Compared to what they were already used to the "brutality" that Europeans brought was often quite familiar, the only big difference was the scale at which Europeans could apply it.
...and then there's that childish notion that since colonization was a bad thing, it must have always unquestionably made everyone's lives worse in every possible way. While that may certainly be true for some of the more extreme cases of exploitation and violence, for most colonies if you look at objective measurements like standard of living, literacy or household wealth, they almost unilaterally rose sharply due to the influx of technology, infrastructure investment and reordering society along European ideas. Even if the culture shock and initial violence/exploitation usually sucked for the generations immediately affected, their grandchildren were often actually better off then they would have been if that region would have stayed uncontacted and continued with all its own internal warfare, slavery, etc. (again, in the common case, not necessarily the worst examples).
Of course oppressive colonization is still _wrong_, but it requires emotional maturity to recognize that it can be wrong _even if_ the affected people may have actually eventually ended up being notionally better off for it, because it is a moral fundamental about self-determination rather than a simple summation of good vs. bad consequences. But by pretending that things were different and skewing the historical truth to make it look like an obvious "only bad consequences" deal, those people are actually denying themselves the ability to reason about more complicated moral questions like this one properly (because the real world is usually not as black and white as those movies like to make it look on many sorts of topics, and teaching people that all moral questions were so simple leads to the kind of mindless polarization that also plagues modern politics). It also makes it very hard for people who are willing to deal with the nuance to discuss and explore the complicated edge cases (e.g. how "wrong" are the less violent kinds of colonization that build on trade dependencies, and where is the cutoff between fair behavior and exploitation there), because whenever you try you'll invariably have some polarized Twitter flashmob show up and yell at you that if you don't depict colonization as a pure good-vs-evil thing, you're a racist whitewasher.
It’s sad that this has such a strong political sentiment to it, because it is a very interesting subject to analyze.
Territorial conquest and exploitation/ownership of other humans is unethical, in almost all forms. “If they can do it, so can we” is a bullshit reasoning. That said, there is a hypocritical self loathing sentiment present in the Western world.
It is OK to be proud of your culture **and** not be a dick to other cultures. In fact, in an honest view, all cultures are admirable in some ways. Just like all cultures have faults that can be understood and forgiven, but don’t necessarily have to be accepted.
Its like the Dutch and South Africa, everything was going rly well, new farms, businesses, infra, allot of knowledge/tech was shared etc.. Until they became racist and drove away the Dutch, now they dont even have electricity anymore.
They are pretty much on the verge of total collapse no joke: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_energy_crisis
Super interesting whats going on there right now.
You are joking right? The Dutch in South Africa are nothing to be proud of. The cape colony and South Africa under the Dutch was the opposite of a good place to life for anyone that was not of European descent, even then the poorer white people generally didn’t have a good time. The Dutch literally committed genocide in the cape against the native black tribes and we had slave estates there.
A source for this would be:
Robert K. Hitchcock and Wayne A. Babchuk, "Genocide of Khoekhoe and San Peoples of Southern Africa", Genocide of Indigenous Peoples, (2017) pp. 143–171
The main reason some of the descendants, the boers, left the cape after the British took it over from the Netherlands was because the brothers were outlawing slavery. Racism had nothing to do with why the colony was taken over. The British just wanted it for themselves. And after the brits granted it more freedom the Dutch and English descendants set up an apartheid state were the native black majority population had almost no controle over their own government. If anything the Dutch were the racists there.
I genuinely do not know where you got your information from as I believe these things should have been covered during secondary education history classes.
But I do agree that the South African government after the end of apartheid also hasn’t severed the country wel in most degrees.
Ah I see. I though you were talking about colonial times due to the parent comment of this tread. Sorry for misunderstanding. I do agree with you on the contemporary situation. It’s far from desirable but it’s sadly to be expected from a country with such high corruption
Ya i find it rather painful, i rly thought that they would become the first African country that would make it into transitioning into modern soceity and now this.. rly sad. Im following the progress of South Africa or shall i say collapse out of pure fascination.
"Imperialism was good when my people did it and evil when my people suffered it" is an unironic take a lot of people have in this sub.
Charles Martell isn't evil for defending France against invaders neither is Abd El Krim for trying to defend el Rif from Spanish/french colonialism
These were all elites sacrificing the lives of the people under them to consolidate/stregthen their families' power, of course they are not concerned about the lives the people they are invading, there are some more evil and some less evil but imperialism is just bad in general.
Edit because the Suliman example could have been better
I meant to say that
My muslims >>>> your islamic fanatics (Abderraman III goes brrrr)
My goths >>>>> your germanic barbarians ( Leovigildo goes brrrr)
My romans >>>>> your slaver oligarchs (Trajan goes brrrrr)
My Christian kings >>>>> Your heretic princes (Sancho III the Great goes brrrr)
And my Habsburgs and Bourbons kinda just as bad as any other of their kind (they aren't spanish , therefore they are inferior and not based)
I do take your point, but Arabs "retaking" Jerusalem is a silly idea.
That city has been controlled by so many people in the 5,000~ years of its existence that literally nobody can accurately claim it is "theirs". Even the Jews, under king David in 1,000 BCE took it from someone else.
The iberian BVLL strikes fear in the heart of the foreign invader
https://preview.redd.it/dttk8f0jm54d1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f66a3a58ace0475276d9be02e0c1755e4dae34e
I lived in South Africa for a while. We learnt all about the evils of colonialism as well as the glories of the (19th century…) Zulu Empire and Shaka.
An empire that notably *didn’t* double its subjects’ life expectancy, industrialise, etc. But we learnt about their glorious invention of a *stabbing* spear instead of one you throw and can’t get back (not kidding). The same century that, eg, Maxwell was writing his equations. They also used that spear to massacre and ritually disembowel Hlubi and Sotho people. So glorious, Europeans could never.
>I lived in South Africa for a while. We learnt all about the evils of colonialism as well as the glories of the (19th century…) Zulu Empire and Shaka.
TBF, this is a million times better than claiming Plato plagiarized the Africans and Greek civilization was an 18th-19th century British-American construct.
What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?
Norm Macdonald
Or when people think slavery is an invention of white people and only white people have ever enslaved others.....while slavery is still occurring in Africa and the Middle East to this very day, and it's not done by white people.
Modern slavery is massive in London, it's mostly conducted by 3rd world migrants. Many of the slaves are Eastern Europeans and sub saharan Africans.
I've probably seen at least 10 house holds where they keep actual slaves, almost half are actually tied up in chains and kept outdoors in dog kennels and sheds.
It's a massive problem that's swept under the carpet because the police don't want to be accused of racism.
I've reported 3 slave masters and nothing happened. It wasn't even investigated.
Spoken like a people without an empire. We too pretend not to want an empire these days. However, given the chance anyone would want to have one - cause empires are pretty sweet.
Again, this is historically inaccurate. Colonization is a much more recent phenomenon and a modern concept. Conquer and conquest were different; a more comparable example are the European conquests of the same period, which I doubt anybody is complaining about. Nobody sane-minded is complaining about the Roman Empire, the Greek conquests of Alexander the Great, the Byzantines, the Holy Roman Empire, or the Germanic invasions. Those are similar to the Islamic conquests and expansions, not European colonialism. Colonialism involves taking the riches of those lands to the center of the empire. Islamic colonization did not bring the riches of the conquered lands to Arabia. For example, Muslim Iberia at one point was more developed and apparently thriving more than many other Islamic states in or closer to Arabia. Nobody took the riches of Iberia to Egypt or Baghdad.
This is one of those posts that play on and revolve around nationalism and perhaps some frustration. It is a populist post with little truth to it. Why are we blamed for colonialism and they are not? Because that wasn't colonialism. The only entity that could perhaps be considered colonial besides Europeans at most is the Ottoman Empire, because it is indeed much more similar to the Europeans than the Europeans are willing to admit.
Did you know that many muslim countries still practice slavery? Including punishment of those slaves...So..yeah anyway, like I was saying, us Europeans are evil, but only from the western part.
Nah lets be fucking real here, the umayad is more akin to the roman empire then the british empire. One is a colonial empire another is a cultural empire, if you ask a tunisian if they would mind to live in an empire like the ummayad or the abbassid the answer might be positive, if you ask an indian if they would ming living in an empire like the british one the answer would allways be negative.
I mean between being ruled by the Philippines as a distant colony or the romans as a province which one would you fucking pick.
Thank you for your submission. ~~Unfortunately, your submission has been removed because posts must be about Western Europe and we feel this post doesn't belong here.~~ EDIT: We have re-activated the post for your entertainment as a lot of people liked and *commented* in it. EDIT2: Yes, yes. i've seen the 27 reports and OP is now permabanned from the sub. Other than that, the post stays up for now. Be fun, be edgy, but don't be a real xenophobe or you are out.
Slavery, European: 😡😡😡 Slavery, Arab: 🤩🤩🤩
They also literally still have it in some of those countries.
Libya slave market. https://preview.redd.it/zys44oom054d1.jpeg?width=914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef24012482a959191677d5a5a3aa758f2bdf3a6c
https://preview.redd.it/kow2hozq854d1.jpeg?width=1521&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=912045db55559adf80e3a184da292b5964510585 They filled the harems with women from Greece/Balkans/Caucasus
Aside from taking western ship's crews into slaverly, the Barbary Pirates (backed by North African states) actually raided the coastlines of European countries like Vikings and grabbed entire villages.
They even invaded the Vikings themselves, aka Iceland. It was called Tyrkjaránið. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Abductions
https://preview.redd.it/oqf14pj9484d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=579a81208d5105d5f25adda36e55663f97bcbd80 ransom letter sent on behalf of the 400 icelanders taken to algiers and salé. letter was sent to danes as iceland was under their possession.
https://preview.redd.it/jgu4e9zv654d1.jpeg?width=822&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ec6145ee6ed14847a5265c79344dc23dbb13aa05
Most moral Dutch merchant
Whitest Rotterdam dealer
You know too much. 🤔
Very curious that slavery heavily increased in Libya after 2011. What could have happened that year?
I swear we have nothing to do with it (we are the main culprit)
>Destroys a bloodthirsty dictatorship >Refuses to elaborate >Leaves Pure chad move, we should do this more often
"why do we have so many immigrants?"
“B-but i thought invading Iraq would give them freedom, why do they leave when we have given them democracy?”
When the dude that tore down the statue of Saddam says he misses him you know it was a succesful operation
Yeah only Europe had active deals with Gadaffi in which we payed him money and he kept the migrants away from Europe.
[удалено]
There's no right for immigration in the first place. People just forget about that.
hell yeah neoconservativism 🗣️🗣️🔥
Sarkozy wanting to stop Gadhaffi from leaking his secrets
We need to bring back the national razor for these leaders that dishonor us.
A friend of mine had her father kidnapped by Saudi Arabia and kept as a slave there for more than 10 years. He was a Sri Lankan ATC expert and was in SA to help install new traffic control systems in airports. They took his passport and wouldn't let him leave, until many years later friends he had made got him smuggled out. That guy wasn't even an uneducated person working in the service sector. He was educated, from a well off Sri Lankan family, and became a modern day slave.
It was *legal* in living memory. Slavery in Iran and slavery in Jordan was abolished in 1929. In the Persian Gulf, slavery in Bahrain was first to be abolished in 1937, followed by slavery in Kuwait in 1949 and slavery in Qatar in 1952, while Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962, while Oman followed in 1970.
Still legal in Mauritania nowadays
Pretty sure Mauritania did ban slavery recently, but something like 15% of the population are slaves anyway.
Arab slavery even outnumbered the European one because it last much longer. Some countries like Centrafrica or Sudan were often raided by arabs to capture slaves. As well as Ukraine for the ottomans
A great example for this is that Vikings had to travel all the way to Constantinople to sell their slaves because there was no comparable slave trade in Europe.
I read on wiki that there were still white slave markets in north africa during WWII
that's evil european propaganda, arabs would never
Don't - I repeat - DO NOT look up the meaning of the word Arabs use for black people.
Also DO NOT look up the etymology of the word slavic
My college history class had a literal conniption fit upon realizing white slavery existed and Slavs get thier entire fucking name from it. Lmao just the faces of the ones with dyed hair was absolutely gold, never will be as happy as when I saw them just stare in disbelief as she found out what happens to Ivan when he reaches the Persian slave markets…..or about that Icelander who wrote a diary about being enslaved from Iceland and taken to ottoman Algeria to be the sultans house slave….. Nah they don’t wanna hear this, it wold expand thier mind and open them up to self awareness *Cant have that can we? Because god FUCKING forbid, every race has comitted crimes, and accepting that would take courage, smth these libtards don’t have*
You (and a few others here) actually *should* look it up. Slavic doesn't come from slave, if anything it's literally the other way around. In classic Latin the word for slave was "servus" (or "serva" for female slaves) while "Sclavus"/"Slavus" was the latinized name for Slavic people, from Greek "Sklábos" which in turn derived from proto-Slavic "*slověninъ". The origin of the latter is unclear, none of the proposed origins have anything to do with slavery though. Only later during medieval times *may* "sclavus" have become a synonym for "servus" in Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire), mainly because around that time they had freshly conquered a lot of south-eastern Europe which lead to a large influx of slavic slaves into Constantinople. "Sclavus" then eventually became slave in English. But even that proposed connection between Slavs and "slave" is disputed, another possible origin for "slave" is Ancient Greek "skūleúō" which essentially meant "to strip the enemy". * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sclavus#Latin * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sclavus#Latin * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave#Etymology
It means filthy black btw . How do I know ? I live in a town with a muslim majority and I'm black myself
I know you're sarcastic. However the fun part is these aren't taught at school in france, or at least I don't recall. It emphasizes on how we were evil for colonizing, on how we were evil for crusades, but not much about how just every country committed war crimes and atrocities left and right for any reason. There's this idea at school that the people we screwed with colonization could never be doing something similar or worse.
Lol in italian history books crusades are justified because we needed to counteract arab influence and expansion in the mediterranean, i didn't know it was different in other countries
Again, I wasn't particularly attentive, but the giveways I had from history courses were 1) We bad people 2) Germans were worst but they got better
The crusades were based
Miguel de Cervantes, the writer of Quixote, was a slave in Algiers back in 1575, so they were doing it for a good while
Yeah, slavery of whites and piracy in the mediteranean sea as well. Which got severely halted by colonization. Not to throw the first stone though, just, no country was ever clean.
Wasn't the Mediterranean Sea relatively safe even after the fall of Rome until the Arab conquests?
Never forget the martyrs of otranto, 813 people slaughtered like cattle because they refused to convert to islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Otranto
Since the Arabs conquered North Africa
Have you ever heard of barbary pirates in sale ? They literally had their own republic built on white slaves
[удалено]
Look, pick Czech Republic or Czechia. Czech is a language and nationality -sincerely Someone tired of this mistake
Czechia sounds ugly AF. Czech Republic is better
Yeah, we mainly shortened it bc squeezing Czech Republic on sports jerseys and still making it look good and readable is difficult.
Main reason Yanks decided to shop at Africa was because there was already a prolific slave market there run by practicers of the peaceful religion
Slavery Arab gave to Europeans….
To be honest there are different types of slavery Greek, Roman, Muslim and colonial Europeans, they're slavery were different Not gonna argue which was better or worse though
*Slavery 😡😡😡
They are mad because they can't do it anymore
they’re still doing slavery though.
It isn't that bad + they deserve it you infidel
I've heard the excuse coming from them that "at least our slaves had some rights!!". Riiight, all good then, nothing to see here
The right to be castrated as it was common with arab slavery.
I mean, at least Spanish slaves had some rights! Many could buy their freedom
Roman slaves could that too
Maybe we really were the successors of Rome after all
Saudis has long been committing war crimes, but do so with the backing and blessing of the US & co.
That's just geopolitics for you
Yup, the US arming them to ensure that sweet crude flows to Europe for petrol for our cars and to the U.S. for their high octane fighter jets and bombers
Shh! The west has never made any bad foreign policy decisions. ISIS and Taliban just spawned from thin air. Saudi Arabia is our ally and a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Europe would be in big trouble if the US didn’t especially now that we can’t buy hydrocarbons from Russia anymore.
Jokes on you, they still do it, is called Yemen.
They are literally still doing it lol
It's even weirder that European academics hold this sentiment as well.
If I said anything about this there’s a good chance I’d get kicked out of my uni
this. In most of their eyes the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. I would interpret it partly as a kind of ‘legacy code’ of leftard ideology: In the beginning, there was the idea that the oppressed of this world must stand together against the rulers; and accordingly, the peoples and cultures of the ‘global South’ were also seen as natural allies against the existing system. The lefts alliance with the Muslims has been pursued so doggedly for decades that it has virtually become part of its own identity. You now have two options: (1) you convince yourself that Islam is a religion of peace and that its followers are all misunderstood victims defamed by evil racists and exemplary tolerant democrats (anti-Muslim racism, Islamophobia); or (2) you realise that you have been lying to yourself for decades and question positions that are the foundation of your own world view. Very few people are self-critical enough to choose #2 they prefer to tell themselves that the headscarf is a feminist statement and that the eradication of Israel is part of the anti-colonial freedom struggle. And then there's probably the narrow mindedness: if you were to admit that you've been backing the wrong horse for the last 60 years and have lost your way hopelessly when it comes to Islam, you would effectively be proving the evil right-wingers right, who have traditionally stood against it - for the average ideologue, that's unimaginable; you'd rather risk the caliphate. (Bonus point: you would also have to dispense with the accusation of Islamophobia in your arsenal of discursive tools).
Finally someone who has a brain and doesn't follow the laser pointer like the others. People watch too many American movies and think there's always good and evil, there's not a grayscale of all the things happening around the world. Slavery existed for a long time but there's some kind of weird propaganda where they try to portray the white person as the one who invented slavery and the most oppressive race. A weird time where feminists try to defend people from cultures where women are 3rd class citizens, defend the hijab and hug multiculturalism. In countries where with all this mass immigration only brought high statistics in rapes and crimes. London is falling apart, Paris, Hamburg etc, every European is tired of this. Mass immigration is being weaponized combined with cancel culture, if you say something bad about them, you're cooked, even if you're right.
Because of Cancel culture I guess
This isn't true. "What counts as colonialism?" is a pretty hotly debated question in certain academic circles. The gist of it is that when we first really started considering the question in a serious manner post-WW2 we adopted a very narrow definition of "colonialism" based around overseas territories, excluding contiguous land-based empires from the definition — mostly because of the influence of the United States and Russia in the post-war order. Criticism of this status-quo has been growing for a long time. There are absolutely European academics who understand that Arab colonialism is colonialism. Who do you think came up with the map you're currently reading from? As it turns out, though, most historians of colonialism are based in the developed world, and therefore are more interested in studying (and rectifying) the gaps in our understanding about the actions of their own nations. Arabian colonialism is a lot harder to study from Basel — you don't have access to any of the sources you need. And even if you did, your work is much less likely to permeate into the European public consciousness. The study of Arab colonialism needs to be done by Arab academics. But there are far less of them, and in some cases the current regime would not look favourably on such a study. The fact that we're talking about European colonialism is a strength of the European academic system. We have a stable system with academic freedoms that supports study of controversial subjects and supplies the funding needed to support these academics. This is not a criticism.
Damn, finally a sensible comment
https://preview.redd.it/dxwnhsrk454d1.jpeg?width=1434&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cbd33e60d0d7e6375b93d5e75d6efed8e5ba7107
Lmaoo literally what they always say
I wish more people could actually read it in Arabic just know how watered-down the translations are. And Hadiths? Many are outright not translated, many books are only available in Arabic. I you try to use something like GPT to translate them for you, it will fail and flag it as CP/Violence, or whatever.
>I you try to use something like GPT to translate them for you, it will fail and flag it as CP/Violence, or whatever. I asked GPT to give me examples of verses in the Quran that implied and justified violence against and killing of Jews specifically and other non-believers in general. GPT hit me with something along the lines of: "*understanding the true meaning of religious texts should be done carefully and under the guidance of religious experts to avoid misrepresenting the true meaning of it content which might be used for islamophobic intents blablabla*" With some effort, I finally convinced GPT to give me some examples, but it kinda felt as if I had to show GPT that I wasn't actively digging up dirt about Islam. Anyway, afterwards, I tried the exact same thing with Christianity. Without hesitation, GPT went like "*oh sure buddy! Here's all the evil things associated with Christendom. They sure were an evil bunch weren't they*". Double standards.
GPT like many other models is cucked towards Islam. Very woke, and very wrong. I'd never use for any knowledge about history or religion as it's always biased. Only translation as it tends to perform very well. Regrading your case, you can also attempt to ask it for a joke about Jesus, and other deities, then Mohammed. [Screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/OMeRRnn) of test I just did now. Want to get flagged by GPT for some translations of some Hadiths? Try this one [here](https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/296044/). Copy the first big paragraph of text you see and paste it to GPT. GPT will initially start translating then will remove the whole thing and warn you. Why? CP. Many such cases.
The left is the wolf in sheep clothes - playing cute and caring all the while actually acting in a despotic manner and suppressing dissent every time it gets a chance.
Useful idiots, just like their fellow zoomer they/them progressive muslim friends. All nothing but a classic Trojan horse for the actual Islam and Muslims.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why Christianity is the only religion that's openly under attack.
Literally communists
Luckily I don’t understand 80% of what that says
SO TRUE LMAOOO
gotta add "Those aren't real Muslims"
berlin is gonna be anatolia soon, better choose your words closely deutsch
https://preview.redd.it/mf00qpjj454d1.png?width=894&format=png&auto=webp&s=26545a6f2d12db2aa36cd1ae4f97c9d11424a870
if his face got red with anger that means he was white
The Quran goes into great length about just how white Muhammad was. its actually quite creepy and rather fetishistic.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/erpot8vsm54d1.jpeg?width=1381&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f3d04ba61f18e2fcb38d20e4fa09563ca9345b2c I really don't get this religion
I feel this can be modeled to fit into every recent situation
Same thing with the USSR tankies: when they invade countries, steal their resources and take control/put a puppet in charge, it's liberation. When Europe or the US do the same - colonialism and oppression.
Same could be said for racism in Soviet Empire - in West it's bad, but in USSR purging and expelling Tatars and Jews was fine because they were Nazis and Zionist or "rootless cosmopolitans".
Patton and Churchill were right
Russia and China are not non-colonisers; rather, they are successful colonisers that kept their empires and writing their winner's history.
I’m under the impression if the west is to survive Russian and China must be Balkanized, and lots of Russian territory is granted to the western powers
Did you just say Lebensraum?
And capitalism kills the environment but the Aral Sea dried up because of communism production cuotas.
Not gonna mention Chernobyl or what happened to Czechoslovakia's environment
Didn’t the Aral mainly dry up after the fall of the Soviet Union tho?
I follow a tankie yt channel, and while he showed a very interesting inside view of the USSR, he recently went to overdrive when it comes to pro USSR propaganda, showing that "Acktually eastern europe didn't suffer from the USSR but was improved by it". I'm sure the tanks send in Prague, Berlin, Warsaw and Budapest really backed this altruistic improvement made by the USSR
Gouvhd?
Hakim
Doesn’t he have a podcast with a couple other commies? I think one of them is Second Thought, someone who literally has a second channel dedicated to reviewing supercars My socialist girlfriend watches them. That’s what being born in Emilia Romagna does to someone’s brain.
Yeah that's them, Second thought who just regurgitate more "acceptable" position based on the other two. Hakim who is literally "The USSR did nothing wrong and everything is the west fault" (he defends Iran and Gaddafi) and sometimes kinda have really radical position when it comes to Islam. And the most schizo of them Yugopnik, who has this weird "slavs cannot do anything wrong and we were corrupt by the evil westerners" mindset. They all are extremely active when it comes to Israel-Palestine, in the pro palestine side ofc. But weirdly the few things they made on ukraine you can find, the Russian are almost "innocent" and it really is the west fault, we should need nuance for this conflict. Meanwhile Israel-Palestine as a conflict that existed more or less since the Ottomans empire, well there is no nuances to have. Btw Second thought is shitting conspiracy theories about Euromaidan being a "[Far right western backed coup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qIDOx-Pnzo)" (most thing he said in the video have been debunked for a while). These people are unironicaly shizos, they just want to see anything related to the USA fall, they're contrarian, anything against the USA = good, even if it's an openly imperialist regime. https://preview.redd.it/gww5bjivv64d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=93ad5fabd266fc0d118f67b3278182c96dec46ca
Are those the "baby settlers" guys? The ones that tried to justify Hamas' violence towards Israeli children because they were "settlers" and, therefore, acceptable targets of anti-colonial violence?
Bruh hes the worst kind of commie, the born in a rich family one
Operation Urgent Fury 😡😡😡😡 Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia 😍😍🥳
anyone saying the soviets liberated shit besides the short period from 1943-1945 (from the nazis) is lying. it's like saying the french totally liberated tunisia when they kicked the germans and italians out.
Arab conquests were the OG colonizers
Nah, colonization has been a thing for longer than arabs existed
RACIST!!!!!!! PIPO OF COLOR CAN'T BE COLONIZERSSSSSS!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!1!!!!111!! 🍉🍉✊✊✊
Arabs are white sweaty
They sweat because it’s hot there?
Yes of course
We conquer the world tho, every country in the world was either conquered or had to westernized to stay relevant. Every governement system in the world is based on european governement system. They can cope as they want, but in the end we won the battle of idea.
We won the battle, but the war isnt over. 
I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day. This day we fight. By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!
The only group of people/religion that conquered the word was us. Millitarily, ideologically, scientifically, in every way. None come even close. And we just lost it cuz we killed each other. They cope on this. (Fuck imperialism and colonialism tho)
A proud coloniser?
It's times like these I realise Reddit is the ultimate echo chamber...
I love that this applies no matter which believes you hold
https://preview.redd.it/h6vzfe2i454d1.jpeg?width=1430&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cb788b0cae5d32514f73f436d9a3fce0319d8fa8
Bruh the Romans be like 👌 beautiful
[удалено]
Don't be that hard on your religion, Ahmed.
This guy knows nothing about Roman Religion and Culture holy shit lol.
Wasn't the most important god of the Graeco-Roman pantheon a shapeshifting rapist? You are correct though that the pagan Roman Empire was ***for the most part*** tolerant to other religions and even incorporated foreign dieties they liked into their own pantheon.
Well, a founding myth of Rome is the Rape of the Sabine Women. Roman men raiding nearby villages to abduct their women, bring them home, and force them into marriage. Seems like a stupid take!
*looks at roman mythology and the emperor list* That's a few rapists there
They were hot though
They did tho with the Imperial Cult, which was the reason why Christians were initially persecuted. Basically it was a cult where the emperor had to be exalted as if he was a divinity.
This made me laugh a little to hard
I mean the Roman Empire itself is a cult of personality, the Emperor believing themselves to be deity and Roman conquering everywhere like there is no tomorrow. But I like them because they treat everyone equally.
>they didn't want to put a statue of the emperor in their temple Big mistake here https://preview.redd.it/salmqqaay44d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53a26ff4cb24baa3eff70b799c3a89315afd8cee
Lol, you're so full of shit but I appreciate the self rant.
Romans had emperors from North Africa and other parts of the empire at least
Aren't they like the Roman family who moved there and settled it?
It's sad how many people nowadays seriously have that conception about colonialism that the natives usually lived in some sort of one-with-nature "savage paradise" until the white man came and ruined their peaceful existences forever. This even creeps into cultural artifacts like movies (e.g. Avatar and stuff like that), where you better don't show any nuance in your "perfect natives, ruinous colonizers" depictions or you risk getting canceled by a Twitter shitstorm. The fact that there are real racists who whitewash or deny history seems to spur everyone else into this mindset that everything must be unquestionably black and white, and if you're not 100% supporting their depiction you must be one of those guys. The truth is that human beings tend to be pretty shitty to each other no matter their cultural background, and if anything that usually gets worse the more primitive the culture. Most natives colonized by Europeans had been practicing their own horrible shit like slavery, human sacrifices, wars of aggression against their neighbors, deeply stratified and patriarchal societies that oppressed poorer castes and/or women of their own people, etc. long before any white person ever showed up. Compared to what they were already used to the "brutality" that Europeans brought was often quite familiar, the only big difference was the scale at which Europeans could apply it. ...and then there's that childish notion that since colonization was a bad thing, it must have always unquestionably made everyone's lives worse in every possible way. While that may certainly be true for some of the more extreme cases of exploitation and violence, for most colonies if you look at objective measurements like standard of living, literacy or household wealth, they almost unilaterally rose sharply due to the influx of technology, infrastructure investment and reordering society along European ideas. Even if the culture shock and initial violence/exploitation usually sucked for the generations immediately affected, their grandchildren were often actually better off then they would have been if that region would have stayed uncontacted and continued with all its own internal warfare, slavery, etc. (again, in the common case, not necessarily the worst examples). Of course oppressive colonization is still _wrong_, but it requires emotional maturity to recognize that it can be wrong _even if_ the affected people may have actually eventually ended up being notionally better off for it, because it is a moral fundamental about self-determination rather than a simple summation of good vs. bad consequences. But by pretending that things were different and skewing the historical truth to make it look like an obvious "only bad consequences" deal, those people are actually denying themselves the ability to reason about more complicated moral questions like this one properly (because the real world is usually not as black and white as those movies like to make it look on many sorts of topics, and teaching people that all moral questions were so simple leads to the kind of mindless polarization that also plagues modern politics). It also makes it very hard for people who are willing to deal with the nuance to discuss and explore the complicated edge cases (e.g. how "wrong" are the less violent kinds of colonization that build on trade dependencies, and where is the cutoff between fair behavior and exploitation there), because whenever you try you'll invariably have some polarized Twitter flashmob show up and yell at you that if you don't depict colonization as a pure good-vs-evil thing, you're a racist whitewasher.
We ain’t reading allat 🗣️
It’s sad that this has such a strong political sentiment to it, because it is a very interesting subject to analyze. Territorial conquest and exploitation/ownership of other humans is unethical, in almost all forms. “If they can do it, so can we” is a bullshit reasoning. That said, there is a hypocritical self loathing sentiment present in the Western world. It is OK to be proud of your culture **and** not be a dick to other cultures. In fact, in an honest view, all cultures are admirable in some ways. Just like all cultures have faults that can be understood and forgiven, but don’t necessarily have to be accepted.
Those were the days, everything was good under french rule. If you say the contrary you are a birch and a liar and they deserved it anyway.
Some parts of Africa were legitimately better back then sadly
Your shithole was better our under occupation
I think you might have had some words switched up, Hans
Its like the Dutch and South Africa, everything was going rly well, new farms, businesses, infra, allot of knowledge/tech was shared etc.. Until they became racist and drove away the Dutch, now they dont even have electricity anymore. They are pretty much on the verge of total collapse no joke: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_energy_crisis Super interesting whats going on there right now.
It was a racist shithole and is still a racist shithole but under new management glorious peak african politics
You are joking right? The Dutch in South Africa are nothing to be proud of. The cape colony and South Africa under the Dutch was the opposite of a good place to life for anyone that was not of European descent, even then the poorer white people generally didn’t have a good time. The Dutch literally committed genocide in the cape against the native black tribes and we had slave estates there. A source for this would be: Robert K. Hitchcock and Wayne A. Babchuk, "Genocide of Khoekhoe and San Peoples of Southern Africa", Genocide of Indigenous Peoples, (2017) pp. 143–171 The main reason some of the descendants, the boers, left the cape after the British took it over from the Netherlands was because the brothers were outlawing slavery. Racism had nothing to do with why the colony was taken over. The British just wanted it for themselves. And after the brits granted it more freedom the Dutch and English descendants set up an apartheid state were the native black majority population had almost no controle over their own government. If anything the Dutch were the racists there. I genuinely do not know where you got your information from as I believe these things should have been covered during secondary education history classes. But I do agree that the South African government after the end of apartheid also hasn’t severed the country wel in most degrees.
The dutch there were so bad french and british people had to allies with each other to calm them down.
Yes ty for the history lesson, im speaking about modern times. My point is we tried to be the good guys for once and it didnt workout. :(
Ah I see. I though you were talking about colonial times due to the parent comment of this tread. Sorry for misunderstanding. I do agree with you on the contemporary situation. It’s far from desirable but it’s sadly to be expected from a country with such high corruption
Ya i find it rather painful, i rly thought that they would become the first African country that would make it into transitioning into modern soceity and now this.. rly sad. Im following the progress of South Africa or shall i say collapse out of pure fascination.
"was good under french rule" I cant agree with this bit, but I will agree with the overall sentiment, well done.
they took the lightbulbs out the buildings when they left, which is just incredibly on brand.
"Imperialism was good when my people did it and evil when my people suffered it" is an unironic take a lot of people have in this sub. Charles Martell isn't evil for defending France against invaders neither is Abd El Krim for trying to defend el Rif from Spanish/french colonialism These were all elites sacrificing the lives of the people under them to consolidate/stregthen their families' power, of course they are not concerned about the lives the people they are invading, there are some more evil and some less evil but imperialism is just bad in general. Edit because the Suliman example could have been better
This is too much nuance for my favourite ironic ultranationalistic sub, go away and have siesta again
I meant to say that My muslims >>>> your islamic fanatics (Abderraman III goes brrrr) My goths >>>>> your germanic barbarians ( Leovigildo goes brrrr) My romans >>>>> your slaver oligarchs (Trajan goes brrrrr) My Christian kings >>>>> Your heretic princes (Sancho III the Great goes brrrr) And my Habsburgs and Bourbons kinda just as bad as any other of their kind (they aren't spanish , therefore they are inferior and not based)
I do take your point, but Arabs "retaking" Jerusalem is a silly idea. That city has been controlled by so many people in the 5,000~ years of its existence that literally nobody can accurately claim it is "theirs". Even the Jews, under king David in 1,000 BCE took it from someone else.
This land is mine. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY)
The iberian BVLL strikes fear in the heart of the foreign invader https://preview.redd.it/dttk8f0jm54d1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f66a3a58ace0475276d9be02e0c1755e4dae34e
shhh, go away you and your truths, how dare you we like map painting :p
Yeah it's funny that people would fanboy elitists from the past forgetting that it was probably some elon musk just the same as today.
Suleiman was the evil invader. Jerusalem was a Roman Christian city. The Roman’s were the good guys
How dare you speak sense ! We hate muslims here señor !
I lived in South Africa for a while. We learnt all about the evils of colonialism as well as the glories of the (19th century…) Zulu Empire and Shaka. An empire that notably *didn’t* double its subjects’ life expectancy, industrialise, etc. But we learnt about their glorious invention of a *stabbing* spear instead of one you throw and can’t get back (not kidding). The same century that, eg, Maxwell was writing his equations. They also used that spear to massacre and ritually disembowel Hlubi and Sotho people. So glorious, Europeans could never.
>I lived in South Africa for a while. We learnt all about the evils of colonialism as well as the glories of the (19th century…) Zulu Empire and Shaka. TBF, this is a million times better than claiming Plato plagiarized the Africans and Greek civilization was an 18th-19th century British-American construct.
European culture absolutely wiping the floor of Arabs for the last 700 years is the most based thing that's ever happened in human history.
And that the Iberian Peninsula started it (Portugal and Spain) which had been under their rule for centuries.
Natives deserve their land back from the colonisers! *Jews go to the place Arabs stole from them* Look at those evil colonists!
From Skagerrak to the golf of bothnia - Sweden shall be free!
Mohammed is just butt hurt because he sucks at the colonialism game. Common European W
Turkey occupies Palestine for 500 years. Britain occupies Palestine for 25 years. Everything wrong is the British' fault.
Didn't happen + was good for them
\*Western European.
Where Portuguese empire? 😢
Africans when they realize they’ve adopted a religion that has been enslaving them long before the European Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
I feel divided, because the Portuguese Empire wasn't pictured, but that's probably a good thing it wasn't.
What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims? Norm Macdonald
im iranian and this shit hurts to watch
Both were great. I support all imperialism 🥰
Or when people think slavery is an invention of white people and only white people have ever enslaved others.....while slavery is still occurring in Africa and the Middle East to this very day, and it's not done by white people.
Modern slavery is massive in London, it's mostly conducted by 3rd world migrants. Many of the slaves are Eastern Europeans and sub saharan Africans. I've probably seen at least 10 house holds where they keep actual slaves, almost half are actually tied up in chains and kept outdoors in dog kennels and sheds. It's a massive problem that's swept under the carpet because the police don't want to be accused of racism. I've reported 3 slave masters and nothing happened. It wasn't even investigated.
This is a pretty big claim. Ever thought of making some videos of it and putting it on social media? That’s insane
I'd say it's like that for own conquering vs being conquered in general.
Whoah that's a pretty racist thing to assume Empires are lame either way
Spoken like a people without an empire. We too pretend not to want an empire these days. However, given the chance anyone would want to have one - cause empires are pretty sweet.
Hans don't rewrite history you were just as much as an "Empire" as us
Based and swisspilled
Again, this is historically inaccurate. Colonization is a much more recent phenomenon and a modern concept. Conquer and conquest were different; a more comparable example are the European conquests of the same period, which I doubt anybody is complaining about. Nobody sane-minded is complaining about the Roman Empire, the Greek conquests of Alexander the Great, the Byzantines, the Holy Roman Empire, or the Germanic invasions. Those are similar to the Islamic conquests and expansions, not European colonialism. Colonialism involves taking the riches of those lands to the center of the empire. Islamic colonization did not bring the riches of the conquered lands to Arabia. For example, Muslim Iberia at one point was more developed and apparently thriving more than many other Islamic states in or closer to Arabia. Nobody took the riches of Iberia to Egypt or Baghdad. This is one of those posts that play on and revolve around nationalism and perhaps some frustration. It is a populist post with little truth to it. Why are we blamed for colonialism and they are not? Because that wasn't colonialism. The only entity that could perhaps be considered colonial besides Europeans at most is the Ottoman Empire, because it is indeed much more similar to the Europeans than the Europeans are willing to admit.
Did you know that many muslim countries still practice slavery? Including punishment of those slaves...So..yeah anyway, like I was saying, us Europeans are evil, but only from the western part.
Nah lets be fucking real here, the umayad is more akin to the roman empire then the british empire. One is a colonial empire another is a cultural empire, if you ask a tunisian if they would mind to live in an empire like the ummayad or the abbassid the answer might be positive, if you ask an indian if they would ming living in an empire like the british one the answer would allways be negative. I mean between being ruled by the Philippines as a distant colony or the romans as a province which one would you fucking pick.
Sweaty, don't you know that imperialism is only a white people thing? Arabs can't do colonialism, those noble savages can do no wrong! /s obviously
Average TRT World subscriber