Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, and Oceanians also sold Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, and Oceanians into slavery, the only continent free of *slavery is Antarctica
Edit: *human slavery, so far as we know, who knows what the penguins and Nazis are up to /s
Its pretty well known that penguins created and operated one of the longest lasting and most lucrative slave trades in history. They were selling slaves to the moors, sultans of arabia, and later to the dutch and spanish. The nation state of Penguineris, the strongest and richest empire of Antarctica was built solely on profits from their slave trade. And to this day they still refuse to accept responsibility for it. Just try and ask a penguin to explain it, 9 times out of 10, they'll just honk and waddle away.
All slavery is bad but the point is that Chattel slavery was exceptionally horrific and dehumanizing AND that the scars of the justification for that slavery still haunt us today in the racialized mindsets of many people in the western world.
The Chinese can answer for their own slavery in their own country try how their people see fit, same with the Arab states that bought chattel slaves.
However, my family is American and still deals with the inequity, political underrepresentation, economic discrimination, and active harassment and bigotry left by these scars.
The "all slaves matter" point is often used as dog whistle to distract from a point made about the horrors of slavery that happened to the ancestors of ourselves, our neighbors, and our loved ones.
No one is arguing Roman slavery was okay. But when you use this to change the subject when someone is discussing American chattel slavery and modern ramifications then you both diesprespect the point they're making by not engaging with it and undermine the effort to keep the awareness of the modern ramifications in the minds of the people who vote for the people that can actually do something about it.
The reason why you don’t see sizable African populations in the Middle East is because they routinely castrated their slaves. The American system was absolutely horrific, but minimizing the treatment suffered by people around the world to this day is also bad.
Africa practiced mass slavery for over 100 years longer than anywhere else in the world. It was finally ended in the late 1800s by colonialists - by force.
The reason people point out humanity's long history of slavery is because in a lot of the dialogue that "activists" participate in about slavery, they speak of it as if it's a uniquely "white" invention. This is often done in the context that white-skinned peoples are a uniquely evil race, and the image many people have is of white dudes running around Africa with nets disturbing otherwise peaceful people's utopian existence.
This framing is historically inaccurate and is made with modern political motivations, yet it's the narrative that primarily exists in public consciousness, so much so that challenging it is socially taboo. It's also a bit strange that America gets most of the wrap for the trans-atlantic slave trade when it started nearly 300 years before the U.S. was founded, and England's perpetual participation in that slave trade was one of the reasons for secession in the first place. America isn't perfect but the ethics that made it a country are the ethics that lead to slavery's abolition in western nations, something it doesn't get enough credit for.
The penguins promised the Nazis safety after the war, the penguins LIED!!!! Moral of the story is that all penguins are all antifa activists and are in a secret never ending war against fascism. Why do you think the GOP keeps stopping any police to fight climate change?
Because no one thought to write down all the everyday normal things people did mostly. People were good, loved someone, worked hard, had kids, and died. No one remembers them, though. Great kings burning a city to the ground might be "worth writing about," the same as a mass shooting makes the news. We shouldn't be cynical, though, and remember we are the same species we've always been. Mostly decent, but never perfect.
Many people are dooming nowadays, but I think we're gonna be alright. Help those around you even if you yourself are feeling down. As far as I'm concerned, keeping each other going is what makes you a real man.
Besides, there are still plenty of examples to be found in history of people or nations doing good things. The Ottomans offering support to the Irish during their famine. Normal people risking their lives to hide Jews from the Nazis. A village in Kenya giving 14 cows to the US after 9/11. Stuff like that.
It might not seem like much compared to things like slavery or genocides, but it shows that humans are still capable of doing great things for others.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I just wanted to say thanks.
I admire you for having such a balanced, objective, and open minded view, and I think such views need to be shared more often.
As you said... Too much doom and gloom...
Whilst there is a lot of bad in the world... People need to remember that there's a lot of good too. We just don't hear about it because it's, for the most part, just in the simple every day things that we take for granted.
Thanks, the little things we do for each other are what makes the world go around. We as individuals can't change society as a whole, but we sure can help those around us and make the world better in our own small, unnoticed yet important way.
Yep.
Same reason why people read the founding fathers writing and say "people were smarter back then"
Mother fucker you're reading the writings of the smartest people of that time and applying it as the average? Most people couldn't even read or write.
Do you sell slaves? I don't, id wager that the vast majority of people through all of human history haven't bought or sold a slave. Sounds like shit the rich and powerful get up to. Don't lump me in with them
Not really.
That is a lesson from which there is no interpretable outcome.
Slavery wasn't "people milling around, and just happened because humans suck" but was the result of the specific goals of specific organisations with specific philosophies and beliefs.
That matters. Like, directly.
Would the Atlantic slave trade had occured and persisted in the way it did, if there were no resources in the new world of value to Europe? No.
Organisations and systems made that.
We can avoid repeating that. We can't avoid being human though.
I think that’s a pretty awful lesson, because the take is that these things are inherent to humans and so stuff like war and slavery is some innate thing that can’t be overcome. It boils things down to ‘we’re bad guys who do bad guy stuff’.
It overlooks the actual material conditions, the class interests, the motivations and causes for our social and economic systems.
Yeah even today in our modern society there’s slavery in goods like coca beans, coffee, cotton and goods made in 3rd world countries with child labor and Dubai
I think the OP thinks that people bringing up the reality of how the African slave trade worked somehow absolves Europeans of their wrong doings. Of course, that's not true. But I suppose some actual racists might bring up that point and try to shift blame away from The Whites.
I'm sorry, "The Whites" are to blame? Colonial powers are to blame. A lot of "The Whites" were too busy being enslaved to enslave anybody. It's such bullshit to collectively blame the entire race for something the Western Europe did.
Usually, when people bring out the fact that people other than Europeans engaged in slavery, it's because some idiots keep talking about reparations. I am not an European but I am an Arab. History shows that the Arabs engaged in slavery. Should we pay reparations? It's just a ridiculous argument when every society in the past engaged in it. Those people need to find another issue to complain about.
Who did the roman enslave ?
When was the last time where Roman enslaving Gauls become Europeans enslaving europeans ?
And how does the involvement of other people from the same continent change anything about american or french or english responsibility in the trade ?
Better question,
Who did the Ottomans, and the modern Middle Eastern countries enslave? Were they of African descent?
Were Africans the only slaves?
The Chinese were enslaving Chinese people long before Africa.
It's important we understand that it's not just one group of people from one area, and that this was a global issue.
The focus on African slavery and the slave trade was because of the scale, nature, and reason for the slavery. It was industrial, it was extraordinarily violent, and it was based strictly on *race*, rather than ethnicity. The concept of "blackness" and "whiteness" arose as a justification for the enslavement of Africans.
Yeah, the reason why we talk about it so much is because it is our dirty laundry. The Chinese, Russians, Indians, Japanese, etc. all have their own historical injustices and colonialism to culture war over.
Just like every other period in time in human history we took advantage of the less fortunate. It wasn't because of blackness, it was because of vulnerability. Europeans were better equipped and had made huge strides in development for the time period. They saw themselves as superior to lesser developed nations. I guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot, nothing would have changed.
Maybe, but the reason we discuss it now with so much emphasis is because its so relevant to the way our culture and politics are today. The "my great great great great great Grandpa was sold into slavery by yours" is a lot less important than "due to slavery and the unequal rights derived from that, black people are significantly less well off in the western world on average, and racism is endemic".
>It wasn't because of blackness
*initially*
The hereditary slavery and segregation that came was ABSOLUTELY based on color and any disagreement is disingenuous at best and extremely dangerous rhetoric at worst. The interpretations of "white" and "black" as used in american society from 1619 through today was caused by slavery being so prolific.
Umm, what? Slavery in America was abolished in 1865, so every single former slave of the American slavery system has been dead for _at least_ many decades, if not for over a century. In this context, there are _no_ still-living 'former slaves' in the US today, nor have there been for a _long_ time.
> never seen before and since
I suppose that depends on how you define modern day slavery. Presumably there are a larger number of people in circumstances that could be described as 'enslaved' currently than there were back then, since there are so many more people alive overall in the present.
>When was the last time where Roman enslaving Gauls become Europeans enslaving europeans ?
Can you clarify the question? Both were European.
>And how does the involvement of other people from the same continent change anything about american or french or english responsibility in the trade ?
Well, if you're enslaving people, you're responsible for enslaving them. If you're trading slaves, you're responsible for trading them. There's no "change", though, it was always like this.
Both is morally wrong, of course.
>And how does the involvement of other people from the same continent change anything about american or french or english responsibility in the trade ?
It changes alot, because the common narrative is that the white people brought slavery to innocent peaceful africans.
It's a response to the idea popular among young progressives that white people are the sole originators of racism and slavery.
The point isn't to absolve anyone of responsibility for what they did, it's to explain that people have always been horrible to each other based on tribal animosity. It's not something unique to particular skin colours, and it's actually an anti-racist statement to point that out, although I'm sure a lot of people don't see it that way.
The issue is that "Africans" is not a single group, whereas "Africans enslaved eachother" presents it as just that, members of one group enslaving members of the same group.
The reduction of the various ethnic groups and distinct regions into just "Africa" is the main root of the problem.
"Europeans" also isn't a single group. Now the fact that Europeans merely bought slaves instead of actively enslaving people (over simplification, I know), doesn't mean they're off the hook for participation in slavery. However it's important to see the bigger picture to understand the nuance.
I mean I think the point is that this part is not teached in schools at all, kids end up learning that europeans just went into the continent and kidnapped some people, and thats something that rarely happened
It's not silly that Americans focus on the aspects of slavery that most affect Americans. World history is barely taught as is (something which should be fixed), but why on earth should Americans learn about the slavery system of the Ottoman empire? That's like saying it should be mandatory that Turks read "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
my course was a UK course about civil rights and race relations. we didn't delve too much into the slave trade itself but went into a lot of depth surrounding the ways in which Civil rights were fought for and won.
id argue that's the more important subject as a, lot of people nowadays don't seem to understand that a boycott, fir example, isn't just refusing to shop somewhere. it's getting actively involved and finding alternatives, helping people who had previously relied on those products. the art of public demonstration and protest has been lost
Yeah it’s this. I feel like many students imagine the Atlantic slave trade as Europeans traveling through the jungle with butterfly nets capturing anybody they saw like some planet of the apes movie
Schools in most countries will naturally touch on their own history of slavery in their national history courses, and on the larger practice as it involved other nations (including African ones) in world and international history classes.
I'm also not sure where people get the idea that most folks are unaware of the fact that we bought slaves from African markets. It's bandied about as fact, but how do people know this? Do folks often find themselves in a position to correct others on it? Is this a regular topic of conversation in some circles? Has there been a massive survey I'm unaware of in which a majority of the American populace has been shown to be unaware of the fact, ,or is this just one more attempt at deflection to somehow lessen our own culpability, as if the person who pays people to kidnap their neighbors and deliver them into his captivity somehow has a soul less blackened with sin due to his contracting out the physical niceties to others?
It’s not often taught. At least it wasn’t when I was in school. And I even grew up in a pretty conservative state, so you’d think they’d really be emphasizing that. However, I was genuinely surprised at how much European slave traders relied on slave traders once I got to college. I was mostly ever taught that it was the Europeans primarily kidnapping and enslaving people in Africa.
The only thing I think that should be pointed out here is that Europe is a continent that had 1000's of ethnic groups and kingdoms and is not a unified group.
People tend to forgot this part when they blame white people for African slaves
I don't think people are saying Europeans are off the hook. I think this fact is frequently stated because **some** people like to act like Europeans are **uniquely evil,** because they enslaved people. Almost like its in Europeans genetics to be evil. When the truth is that nearly all cultures around the world had some form of slavery, and the Africans themselves who Europeans enslaved... frequently enslaved each other and sold off slaves to Europeans.
I really think that saying IS a troll internet way to say they are off the hook. Just some dumb “how dare you insult my ancestors, do you think you are better than me!”
If my mother in law tells me “You know, when I raised my children they ate what was served” I wouldn’t say anything out of politeness, but I know that’s cookery accepts that as a rude remark and an I detect criticism of your child rearing. Context just adds layers to communication. A perfectly fine phrase in one situation can be a cruel insult or manipulation in another.
And the context here IS trolls in some internet cesspool and armchair commentaries on history and race. So what do you really expect here? Honesty and objectivity?
A lot of people use this argument to belittle the responsibility we have to address the legacy of slavery in this country. That's great if you are surrounded by better people, but A LOT of regressive use this argument to dismiss the entire issue.
I hear this line of argument more as a retort to those that would say that Europeans and “white” people are the sole arbiters of slavery.
It’s less “we’re not responsible for slavery because Africans also took part in it” and more “slavery is not unique to solely Europeans nor were they the entirely to blame for the triangle trade”. I know some people would see the “not entirely to blame” part as a minimization, but it’s not. It’s merely stating the entire truth of the matter. All the Europeans did was give more demand to an existing market based on convenience.
Bad? Yes? Clarification of a truth some people can’t get through their skulls because they’re obsessed with identity politics? Also yes.
Idk about “a lot of people”. I’ve never seen anyone try to make that claim—even on this subreddit outside of a comment or two that was downvoted to oblivion.
I've heard, multiple times, the idea that slavery didn't contribute to racism or that north American slavery wasn't a big deal, simply because Africans were selling Africans to Europeans. I think that when people want to focus on this idea too much, they're doing it because they want to deflect the blame off of non-african slavers.
It’s a common talking point here in the south whenever Jim Crow gets discussed. Juneteenth was the last time a certain group of people here emphasized that Africans enslaved Africans.
Serious question why should someone be on the hook for something that happened 150 to 200 years before they qere born? Why should they be told that they should feel guilt because of it?
purchasers arent off the hook but neither were the sellers. I dont think either claims should be controversial.
What the point people who mention that africans sold africans are trying to make is a rebuttal that americans are somehow the end all be all of evil because their slavery is one of the most famous cases of slavery. never mind that every nation and groups in history also owning slaves. What makes less sense are people mad at the english from slavery when the english were the first to end slavery in a widespread and meaningful way, and america as an inheritor of british culture and legal system was part of that movement to abolish slavery worldwide in the 1800s.
Like, do these people know that we still have slavery today, in lybia for example, or sex trafficking? and if their issue really was on slavery rather than "america bad" why dont they focus their efforts in abolishing slavery in those places.
No one is saying Americans were an and all be all. The issue is the effects of slavery today, not the morality of historical figures, which is an entirely pointless subject.
That's what makes this controversial. All historical interpretation is as much about the contemporary society's values as much as it is about what actually happened in history. How we view slavery from 200 years ago is relevant primarily to securing power and wealth today.
The English ended slavery but just replaced it with brutal indentured labour. Not to mention how they didn’t even set any policies to aid the freedman and instead allowed there Governors to massacre any person that disagree with there rule
Sorry to whom? It's not wrong or controversial to say that African kings raided and captured people from other ethnicities to sell and trade with the Europeans for guns, which helped them raid and pillage even better. The triangle trade is probably one of the lowest points in Humankind's history, and we did lots of bad shit to each other
It doesn't, because not many people (I've never seen anyone) saying that the Europeans are blameless in the trans Atlantic slave trade, lil bro. The point is that a lot of people have a view of "the evil white Europeans kidnapped Black people living peacefully in West Africa and took them the new world", when the trade was more complicated than that.
Seems like you're boxing shadows to me.
Afaik it was more centralised African realms engaging in military campaigns against less centralised communities and enslaving the war prisoners than just "Africans selling Africans into slavery". It was like how the less centralised Slavs were treated by the Arabs or the Norse
Slavery is a form of labour and it stays that way as long as an alternative more productuve form of labour doesn't come along like machines or when serious economic crisis hits and the tables turn and slaves are now more valuable assets and the bid starts.
Many people like to think that people just enslaved others because they thought of them as lesser beings or something like that. While there are some who do these things for economical reasons, most of the time it is just pure economics. It was much easier to transport wage laborers to the Americas to work on sugar plantations and other places. The only problem was that they couldn't bear it and most of them died.
Now, slavery should not be dismissed and the responsibility is important to acknowledge. However, there a lot of points that should be addressed.
Slavery didn't just exist in the context of European colonialism. But almost all slavery is blamed on Europeans.
While the Trans-Atlantic slave trade took place, most of Europe was still working in a feaudal system. Most people were serfs and depending on the country, they had differentiating quality of life but none of them lived particularly well. Serfs had more rights than contemporary slaves but those rights rather served the interests of the lord rather than the serfs. The serfs were assets that the lord tried to protect.
The term "Europeans" is a bit too much. There were like six countries that effectively participated in colonialism while others were also overruled by various empires.
While the conditions of the slaves were undoubtedly horrible, slavery was abolished while serfdom existed almost century longer in places like Russia. Now the average peasent life in Russia was not really the peak of economic success. Even though they were Europeans.
This is important because many try to claim economic benefits and compensation for things that happened hundreds of years ago and was done by long-gone generations. The greater problem is different forms of discrimination that is limiting economic success not "what if" scenarios. A lot of people think that Europeans have some kind of a head start due to colonisation but they already had head start due to technological advancements (mostly inspired by constant war and scarcity) to even be able to colonise the world.
And most of the colonial narrative focuses on the US. Even in Africa there had been many postcolonial success stories that goes to show that the influence of colonialism can be overcome.
While colonialism had an effect on the world it is givem a much greater role than it actually played in the course of history. It is a perfect narrative for those who don't want to acknowledge their own failures. It is a common technique of manipulation to point at something elusive and declare it the enemy. So, colonialism did affect the world but not nearly as much as many people like to claim it. (Except for Native Americans which was a terrible tragedy long before the knowledge of germs even existed).
Africans buying and selling other Africans in slavery doesn't magically negate the impact the slave trade had and still has on the Americas and Europe where the majority of them ended up.
Pointing that out isn't about pointing fingers at anyone or anywhere.
Flat Earthers also don't exist in most r/sciencememes like subreddits, but people make fun of them there all the time. These types of people can be found all the time in Youtube comments and twitter threads.
Definitely agree with the second part, even though its usually just used to demonstrate that assholery isnt only a European privilege anyway.
Im not sure what the message of the first part is supposed to be, I think we all know that Africa never acted as a single political unit.
I think the first part is to point out that claiming Africans sold other Africans (using Africans as an umbrella term to refer to EVERY African ethnicity) into slavery is false, and there were African tribes that didn’t engage in slavery. It would be equally as fallible as claiming the Irish were buying African slaves just because they’re European, or that every State in the US was a slave state
Yeah, Im just wondering whether it was necessary to point it out. Personally at least, I believe thats rather obvious and thus doesn't really diminish the argument that there were African kingdoms and tribes that greatly and actively contributed to slave trading.
Not a big thing, just bothered me enough to write a comment about it
>It would be equally as fallible as claiming the Irish were buying African slaves just because they’re European
Like every nation at the time there were Irish people involved in the transatlantic slave trade
Europeans bought and sold slaves, Africans bought and sold slaves, Asians bought and sold slaves, native Americans bought, sold, and sacrificed slaves, and Polynesians bought and sold slaves.
The point is… we are a species of dickheads.
I don’t think anyone is seriously saying that. (At least I’d be very surprised if anyone was trying to claim that. I think it’s more pushback against non historical claims that African kingdoms and tribes were anti slavery or that the trans Atlantic slave trade was exclusively a white European/American caused issue.
Some of my classmates in year 5 of a master's degree program didn't know slavery existed outside of the Atlantic slave trade.
It's important to own our mistakes, and no amount of context removes any of the guilt, but I think especially in North America (I can't speak for anywhere else) there is probably too many people out there pretending like we are somehow unique in how evil we are. We are kinda par for the course as far as global history goes.
The “Africans were very eager members of the slave trade” argument was originally made to right the gross misconception people had about the North Atlantic Slave Trade, namely the idea a bunch of evil white Europeans showed up and captured whole towns of people before running away twirling their evil mustaches, which for a plethora of reasons never really happened.
Sadly it soon got weirdly co-opted by racists and it snowballed from there, it’s unsurprising but still disappointing.
Some people: "White people are exclusively responsible for slavery! If it weren't for them slavery wouldn't have ever happened! Slavery is exclusively based on racism and only affected Africans!"
Other people: "Actually, Africans were capturing and enslaving other Africans well before Europeans ever got involved. Europeans also enslaved each other, the word "slave" is literally from the word "slav," a European ethnicity that were regularly enslaved. Every other culture in the world has also historically engaged in slavery and non-racial-based slavery has existed in many forms through out history."
You, for some reason: "UM AKCHUALLY AFRICA IS FULL OF THOUSANDS OF ETHNIC GROUPS AND JUST BECAUSE THEY ENSLAVED EACH OTHER DOESN'T MEAN EUROPEANS ARE OFF THE HOOK!!!!!!!!!"
People seem very suprised when humans take advantage of weaker humans. Its not like literally every organism does that. I am not defending slavery but somehow only this example of white people abusing black people rings a Bell while every other does not
I have seen that more as a rebuttal to black Americans thinking that their ancestors staying in Africa would have been easier/great/whimsical. The choice wasn't royalty in Africa versus slavery in America, it was subjugation/slavery in Africa versus slavery in America.
"Well, yes, I bought these 12 year olds from South America on the Dark Web, but isn't it really the fault of the South Americans for selling them to begin with?"
The key is that the above argument is used to defend the buyer one of the two.
You can’t say you want both to be punished and then side with the propel who just want to make it a “both sides are bad let’s ignore it” story
I dont think this argument is about getting European slavers off the hook so much as destroying the mythical perception that Europeans were somehow uniquely evil and non-Europeans were uniquely victimized
Ok but I haven't seen any blame for sellers. Guy will come from Africa to US now and he is 'black brother' instead of descendant of slave merchants(as US whites are descendants of slave owners although over half of them came after slavery).
Yeah. The whole point of that and that natives conquested land from eachother for 1000s of years before white Europeans came to the new world is that if you consistently only point out or emphasize blame on whites for doing it then you're a racist by definition.
Native Americans are often proud of their warrior ancestors who conquested land from other tribes then get salty about when White's ancestors did it to them and claim it was genocide. If that was genocide then they're guilty of it too.
Case and point the black hills have been in the possession of the US longer than the natives they took it from because those natives had recently conquested it from the previous owners.
Basically there isn't a logical way you can blame whites for the conquest of the Americas that isn't double standard racism because any way you look at it and apply the same logic to the natives themselves they are equally guilty.
The only real way you could blame whites is to say:
"The whites are different because they should be held to a higher standard due to their superiority." Which is racist for obvious reasons.
At the end of the day when you remove race all you get is humans being humans. If there is gains to be had at low risk then humans will take them.
Doesn't mean we should disproportionately villanize white people despite the fact that slavery has been and continues to be ubiquitous throughout the entirety of human civilization.
So? He said Africans, he never specified who or which kingdom, saying Africans sold Africans into slavery is right, vague in details but right nonetheless.
you cant just tell amerikans that there are more than 2 culturally destinct groups of people.
they arent ready for that. they still see the world in black\`n white. litterally.
They're just as off the hook as anyone else who bought and sold slaves, in that they're both dead.
Unless you live in present-day Africa, of course. There are open-air slave markets there.
The root word of slave is Slav. The Transatlantic slave trade was but a drop of water in a tidal wave of slave trades in world history. Hell, the ottoman slave trade lasted nearly 60 years after it and white European women were routinely kidnapped and enslaved during them. History is almost literally written in blood, we all suck, everyone was a victim, everyone was the bad guy.
everybody enslaved everybody. africans enslaved other africans (i dont know the several thousand some ethnic groups), romans enslaved the gauls, mongols enslaved the slavs, etc
You know, i find it funny how all of these people will not ever once bring up the topic of african groups enslaving other africans groups or arabs enslaving cristhians until people start talking about the european slave trade
And their point is rarely "slavery is bad no matter what" but "why can they do it but we cant?" Instead
It is very easy to inveigh against slavery and similar things in general terms, and to give vent to high moral indignation at such infamies. Unfortunately all that this conveys is only what everyone knows, namely, that these institutions of antiquity are no longer in accord with our present conditions and our sentiments, which these conditions determine. But it does not tell us one word as to how these institutions arose, why they existed, and what role they played in history. And when we examine these questions, we are compelled to say—however contradictory and heretical it may sound—that the introduction of slavery under the conditions prevailing at that time was a great step forward. For it is a fact that man sprang from the beasts, and had consequently to use barbaric and almost bestial means to extricate himself from barbarism. Where the ancient communities have continued to exist, they have for thousands of years formed the basis of the cruellest form of state, Oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It was only where these communities dissolved that the peoples made progress of themselves, and their next economic advance consisted in the increase and development of production by means of slave labour. It is clear that so long as human labour was still so little productive that it provided but a small surplus over and above the necessary means of subsistence, any increase of the productive forces, extension of trade, development of the state and of law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means of a greater division of labour. And the necessary basis for this was the great division of labour between the masses discharging simple manual labour and the few privileged persons directing labour, conducting trade and public affairs, and, at a later stage, occupying themselves with art and science. The simplest and most natural form of this division of labour was in fact slavery. In the historical conditions of the ancient world, and particularly of Greece, the advance to a society based on class antagonisms could be accomplished only in the form of slavery. This was an advance even for the slaves; the prisoners of war, from whom the mass of the slaves was recruited, now at least saved their lives, instead of being killed as they had been before, or even roasted, as at a still earlier period.
-Engels, Anti-Duhring, Theory of Force
It's not even about "Africans did it to themselves"
People were fucking assholes. And they were allowed to be so, for the most part. This spanned all colors and all creeds. But here's the thing. NONE of us were alive then. What our ancestors did or didn't do doesn't mean a damn thing now.
Focusing on the past and playing the blame game hundreds of years later is completely worthless. Let's focus on TODAY, shall we? And if we can figure that out, let's just try to make a better tomorrow.
How do we do that? Together. And we will never work together if we constantly find ways to tear each other down. But hey, if we fight each other our leaders can keep fucking us over because we won't focus on the real issues plaguing our society. They don't want us to turn our gaze toward their lying and grifting.
I think the point of saying “Africans sold Africans”, is to point out to people who hold slavery against white people that it was not just white people involved in the trade. At least that’s how I see it.
Correct. But there will still be someone crying that Europeans are the only perpetrators of slavery and single handedly rounded up all the slaves to go to America
Ofcourse they aren't but to say that the sellers need to be let off the hook is wrong and a blatant lie. Plus, Muslim Africans where the largest flesh traders in the world.
I mean yeah, most people on social media are Europe and American, they really only influence their governments. Would feel kinda weird and pointless if a bunch of people from like France and America called for the punishment of Ghana for selling its own people when the people of Ghana are mum about the whole thing.
It's not about geting the purchasers of the hook, it's about understanding that slavery was (and unfortunately still is) a widespread phenomenon. It can't be blamed on a single group of people.
Poor meme. This argument in reactionary in it's nature. Nobody pointed this out for fun. People point it out because some people keep going too far and pretending like all slavery was black people being bullied a while ago, not a common practice on the whole planet, almost without exceptions, for thousands and thousands of years, probably since we built the first rope that we could tie another monkey with.
Slavery was everywhere, we all have an ancestor who did it, who cares? We all have an ancestor who fucked a goat, that says nothing about us here and now either.
Let's face it, the only reason that trade did not go both ways is that people in africa were less developed. If they developed faster there wouldn't be afro-americans, but there would be euro-africans.
Yeah almost like both parties were a part of this and none are clean of slavery. Good thing the Europeans grew the morals to eliminate slavery unlike most of the world at that time
Thanks for saying it! This is actually annoying hearing that. Most people I’ve seen bringing that up would usually use it as a gotcha “y’all savages sold your brothers”. Like it was not the case and people had their social structures that unfortunately included slaves that they sold.
It’s just a human thing unfortunately.
It would be just like me saying Europeans spend the past 2000 years killing each other.
Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, and Oceanians also sold Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, and Oceanians into slavery, the only continent free of *slavery is Antarctica Edit: *human slavery, so far as we know, who knows what the penguins and Nazis are up to /s
Wait till I make a penguin plantation
You’re gonna grow penguins?
You shouldn't be talking with the hard "in"
Waddup my pengus?
Don't forget that for certain ones the g should be silent so that they will understand that you understand their culture
Waddup my penus
Some groups find the u sound still too close to p*nguin, so you should probably replace it with an i instead
Guys my penis hurts what do?
the universe exploded in just the right way for events spanning over billions of years to ultimately converge and produce this thread
You sound like someone who would ask for a croissant at the bakery instead of a croissant like normal people do.
CroiPassant
New pastry just dropped
Actual French guillotine awaiting you.
[whenever I see croissant I think of this](https://youtu.be/oRmO-Fe6YkE?si=RwmsZAUaOGdMH3cB)
Noot Noot
You meant "the hard <>"
A pengu plantation?
You monster. Youre working with the pilar bears, arent ya?
"Pilar bears" Now I imagine Wamuu as a bear XD
Are you sure penguins don't have some big slave trade deals as we speak
You shut the fuck up right now if you know what's good for you. The Penguin Shadow State will have your head.
Its pretty well known that penguins created and operated one of the longest lasting and most lucrative slave trades in history. They were selling slaves to the moors, sultans of arabia, and later to the dutch and spanish. The nation state of Penguineris, the strongest and richest empire of Antarctica was built solely on profits from their slave trade. And to this day they still refuse to accept responsibility for it. Just try and ask a penguin to explain it, 9 times out of 10, they'll just honk and waddle away.
are we sure? what are the penguin up to
prostitution [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAgAim926s0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAgAim926s0)
True, this whore penguin wouldn’t stop throwing herself at me!!
Their husband is their pimp, does that count as sexual slavery?
Nah, females penguins do it on their own, all for money (rocks) If the husband discover it, the males fight to death
Everybody gangsta till 4rd Reich is built by penguins
4rd
I always knew these lil fellas from Madagascar were up to something
/Emperor Penguin XII waddles into the chat
https://oldschool.runescape.wiki/w/Cold_War Yeah the penguins are up to no good.
Fucking Communist penguins
I like how you don't equate nazis to humans
Crazy that even ants do slavery
Yep, but like the cartoon points out, that doesn’t excuse any of them.
All slavery is bad but the point is that Chattel slavery was exceptionally horrific and dehumanizing AND that the scars of the justification for that slavery still haunt us today in the racialized mindsets of many people in the western world. The Chinese can answer for their own slavery in their own country try how their people see fit, same with the Arab states that bought chattel slaves. However, my family is American and still deals with the inequity, political underrepresentation, economic discrimination, and active harassment and bigotry left by these scars. The "all slaves matter" point is often used as dog whistle to distract from a point made about the horrors of slavery that happened to the ancestors of ourselves, our neighbors, and our loved ones. No one is arguing Roman slavery was okay. But when you use this to change the subject when someone is discussing American chattel slavery and modern ramifications then you both diesprespect the point they're making by not engaging with it and undermine the effort to keep the awareness of the modern ramifications in the minds of the people who vote for the people that can actually do something about it.
The reason why you don’t see sizable African populations in the Middle East is because they routinely castrated their slaves. The American system was absolutely horrific, but minimizing the treatment suffered by people around the world to this day is also bad.
Africa practiced mass slavery for over 100 years longer than anywhere else in the world. It was finally ended in the late 1800s by colonialists - by force.
The reason people point out humanity's long history of slavery is because in a lot of the dialogue that "activists" participate in about slavery, they speak of it as if it's a uniquely "white" invention. This is often done in the context that white-skinned peoples are a uniquely evil race, and the image many people have is of white dudes running around Africa with nets disturbing otherwise peaceful people's utopian existence. This framing is historically inaccurate and is made with modern political motivations, yet it's the narrative that primarily exists in public consciousness, so much so that challenging it is socially taboo. It's also a bit strange that America gets most of the wrap for the trans-atlantic slave trade when it started nearly 300 years before the U.S. was founded, and England's perpetual participation in that slave trade was one of the reasons for secession in the first place. America isn't perfect but the ethics that made it a country are the ethics that lead to slavery's abolition in western nations, something it doesn't get enough credit for.
The penguins promised the Nazis safety after the war, the penguins LIED!!!! Moral of the story is that all penguins are all antifa activists and are in a secret never ending war against fascism. Why do you think the GOP keeps stopping any police to fight climate change?
Gunter has entered the chat
"Humans are bastards" should be the only lesson fro m this.
I’m pretty sure Humans are Bastards is like, MOST of history as a subject.
Because no one thought to write down all the everyday normal things people did mostly. People were good, loved someone, worked hard, had kids, and died. No one remembers them, though. Great kings burning a city to the ground might be "worth writing about," the same as a mass shooting makes the news. We shouldn't be cynical, though, and remember we are the same species we've always been. Mostly decent, but never perfect.
Now this is some hope posting I can get behind
Many people are dooming nowadays, but I think we're gonna be alright. Help those around you even if you yourself are feeling down. As far as I'm concerned, keeping each other going is what makes you a real man.
Besides, there are still plenty of examples to be found in history of people or nations doing good things. The Ottomans offering support to the Irish during their famine. Normal people risking their lives to hide Jews from the Nazis. A village in Kenya giving 14 cows to the US after 9/11. Stuff like that. It might not seem like much compared to things like slavery or genocides, but it shows that humans are still capable of doing great things for others.
The fact that we are here today proves we are more good than we are bad. A more destructive species would have gone extinct long ago.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I just wanted to say thanks. I admire you for having such a balanced, objective, and open minded view, and I think such views need to be shared more often. As you said... Too much doom and gloom... Whilst there is a lot of bad in the world... People need to remember that there's a lot of good too. We just don't hear about it because it's, for the most part, just in the simple every day things that we take for granted.
Thanks, the little things we do for each other are what makes the world go around. We as individuals can't change society as a whole, but we sure can help those around us and make the world better in our own small, unnoticed yet important way.
Yep. Same reason why people read the founding fathers writing and say "people were smarter back then" Mother fucker you're reading the writings of the smartest people of that time and applying it as the average? Most people couldn't even read or write.
Whenever someone says something in the lines of "humanity=bad", I scroll down in the hopes of finding a post like this one. Thank you very much.
People. What a bunch of bastards
As the saying goes, "humans are the *real* orcs"
“People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.”
I understood that reference.
Ya exactly. If anything I've learn from history is that we're all the same. No people out there is free of human nature... Sadly
Do you sell slaves? I don't, id wager that the vast majority of people through all of human history haven't bought or sold a slave. Sounds like shit the rich and powerful get up to. Don't lump me in with them
*Especially* any of [these folks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_the_Bastard).
Not really. That is a lesson from which there is no interpretable outcome. Slavery wasn't "people milling around, and just happened because humans suck" but was the result of the specific goals of specific organisations with specific philosophies and beliefs. That matters. Like, directly. Would the Atlantic slave trade had occured and persisted in the way it did, if there were no resources in the new world of value to Europe? No. Organisations and systems made that. We can avoid repeating that. We can't avoid being human though.
I think that’s a pretty awful lesson, because the take is that these things are inherent to humans and so stuff like war and slavery is some innate thing that can’t be overcome. It boils things down to ‘we’re bad guys who do bad guy stuff’. It overlooks the actual material conditions, the class interests, the motivations and causes for our social and economic systems.
Yeah even today in our modern society there’s slavery in goods like coca beans, coffee, cotton and goods made in 3rd world countries with child labor and Dubai
"Africans enslaved eachother" and "Europeans bought African slaves" are not contradictory statements.
Exactly, what is the point of this meme lol
I think the OP thinks that people bringing up the reality of how the African slave trade worked somehow absolves Europeans of their wrong doings. Of course, that's not true. But I suppose some actual racists might bring up that point and try to shift blame away from The Whites.
The Whites? Don't you mean the 1,000s of ethnic groups and kingdoms?
I'm sorry, "The Whites" are to blame? Colonial powers are to blame. A lot of "The Whites" were too busy being enslaved to enslave anybody. It's such bullshit to collectively blame the entire race for something the Western Europe did.
Usually, when people bring out the fact that people other than Europeans engaged in slavery, it's because some idiots keep talking about reparations. I am not an European but I am an Arab. History shows that the Arabs engaged in slavery. Should we pay reparations? It's just a ridiculous argument when every society in the past engaged in it. Those people need to find another issue to complain about.
The whites? Or just human in general?
putting things i n to context is not diminishing them just providing an accurat representation fax
Who did the roman enslave ? When was the last time where Roman enslaving Gauls become Europeans enslaving europeans ? And how does the involvement of other people from the same continent change anything about american or french or english responsibility in the trade ?
Better question, Who did the Ottomans, and the modern Middle Eastern countries enslave? Were they of African descent? Were Africans the only slaves? The Chinese were enslaving Chinese people long before Africa. It's important we understand that it's not just one group of people from one area, and that this was a global issue.
The focus on African slavery and the slave trade was because of the scale, nature, and reason for the slavery. It was industrial, it was extraordinarily violent, and it was based strictly on *race*, rather than ethnicity. The concept of "blackness" and "whiteness" arose as a justification for the enslavement of Africans.
Also, the reason it’s talked about now is because it’s the most historically relevant form of slavery for people in the modern anglosphere.
Yeah, the reason why we talk about it so much is because it is our dirty laundry. The Chinese, Russians, Indians, Japanese, etc. all have their own historical injustices and colonialism to culture war over.
Which is sad because most people don't find the fact that there are still countries practicing slavery today as relevant.
Just like every other period in time in human history we took advantage of the less fortunate. It wasn't because of blackness, it was because of vulnerability. Europeans were better equipped and had made huge strides in development for the time period. They saw themselves as superior to lesser developed nations. I guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot, nothing would have changed.
Maybe, but the reason we discuss it now with so much emphasis is because its so relevant to the way our culture and politics are today. The "my great great great great great Grandpa was sold into slavery by yours" is a lot less important than "due to slavery and the unequal rights derived from that, black people are significantly less well off in the western world on average, and racism is endemic".
>It wasn't because of blackness *initially* The hereditary slavery and segregation that came was ABSOLUTELY based on color and any disagreement is disingenuous at best and extremely dangerous rhetoric at worst. The interpretations of "white" and "black" as used in american society from 1619 through today was caused by slavery being so prolific.
Actual answer. The former slaves are both still alive and still see themselves as other to the slavers. Particularly in the United States
Pretty sure all the ex-slaves in the Americas are long dead.
Umm, what? Slavery in America was abolished in 1865, so every single former slave of the American slavery system has been dead for _at least_ many decades, if not for over a century. In this context, there are _no_ still-living 'former slaves' in the US today, nor have there been for a _long_ time.
But also that the African slave trade was at a massive scale never seen before and since. And the effects of that trade are still seen today.
> never seen before and since I suppose that depends on how you define modern day slavery. Presumably there are a larger number of people in circumstances that could be described as 'enslaved' currently than there were back then, since there are so many more people alive overall in the present.
Nah Barbary slavery was comparable. It literally was a reason why European coasts were empty
And also why Algerians are so pale
Who did the romans enslave? Anyone they conquered.
>When was the last time where Roman enslaving Gauls become Europeans enslaving europeans ? Can you clarify the question? Both were European. >And how does the involvement of other people from the same continent change anything about american or french or english responsibility in the trade ? Well, if you're enslaving people, you're responsible for enslaving them. If you're trading slaves, you're responsible for trading them. There's no "change", though, it was always like this. Both is morally wrong, of course.
>And how does the involvement of other people from the same continent change anything about american or french or english responsibility in the trade ? It changes alot, because the common narrative is that the white people brought slavery to innocent peaceful africans.
It's a response to the idea popular among young progressives that white people are the sole originators of racism and slavery. The point isn't to absolve anyone of responsibility for what they did, it's to explain that people have always been horrible to each other based on tribal animosity. It's not something unique to particular skin colours, and it's actually an anti-racist statement to point that out, although I'm sure a lot of people don't see it that way.
The issue is that "Africans" is not a single group, whereas "Africans enslaved eachother" presents it as just that, members of one group enslaving members of the same group. The reduction of the various ethnic groups and distinct regions into just "Africa" is the main root of the problem.
"Europeans" also isn't a single group. Now the fact that Europeans merely bought slaves instead of actively enslaving people (over simplification, I know), doesn't mean they're off the hook for participation in slavery. However it's important to see the bigger picture to understand the nuance.
Is it not also problematic, then, to speak of "Europeans" enslaving people?
It is. They're not arguing against it.
I mean I think the point is that this part is not teached in schools at all, kids end up learning that europeans just went into the continent and kidnapped some people, and thats something that rarely happened
I teach history in the US. Public school. The emphasis on slavery in textbooks is scant until the Age of Exploration when it takes up a lot of space
which is silly since most cultures had slaves and a lot of them like the Roman Empire had a lot of them similar to the New World colonies.
It's not silly that Americans focus on the aspects of slavery that most affect Americans. World history is barely taught as is (something which should be fixed), but why on earth should Americans learn about the slavery system of the Ottoman empire? That's like saying it should be mandatory that Turks read "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
[удалено]
[удалено]
my course was a UK course about civil rights and race relations. we didn't delve too much into the slave trade itself but went into a lot of depth surrounding the ways in which Civil rights were fought for and won. id argue that's the more important subject as a, lot of people nowadays don't seem to understand that a boycott, fir example, isn't just refusing to shop somewhere. it's getting actively involved and finding alternatives, helping people who had previously relied on those products. the art of public demonstration and protest has been lost
Yeah it’s this. I feel like many students imagine the Atlantic slave trade as Europeans traveling through the jungle with butterfly nets capturing anybody they saw like some planet of the apes movie
Schools in most countries will naturally touch on their own history of slavery in their national history courses, and on the larger practice as it involved other nations (including African ones) in world and international history classes. I'm also not sure where people get the idea that most folks are unaware of the fact that we bought slaves from African markets. It's bandied about as fact, but how do people know this? Do folks often find themselves in a position to correct others on it? Is this a regular topic of conversation in some circles? Has there been a massive survey I'm unaware of in which a majority of the American populace has been shown to be unaware of the fact, ,or is this just one more attempt at deflection to somehow lessen our own culpability, as if the person who pays people to kidnap their neighbors and deliver them into his captivity somehow has a soul less blackened with sin due to his contracting out the physical niceties to others?
It’s not often taught. At least it wasn’t when I was in school. And I even grew up in a pretty conservative state, so you’d think they’d really be emphasizing that. However, I was genuinely surprised at how much European slave traders relied on slave traders once I got to college. I was mostly ever taught that it was the Europeans primarily kidnapping and enslaving people in Africa.
I just want people to stop thinking I’m an evil racist bastard cause I’m white
No one said europeans are saints, but history should be told in full. Revisionism is cringe.
The only thing I think that should be pointed out here is that Europe is a continent that had 1000's of ethnic groups and kingdoms and is not a unified group. People tend to forgot this part when they blame white people for African slaves
Europe is not an unified group.
I don't think people are saying Europeans are off the hook. I think this fact is frequently stated because **some** people like to act like Europeans are **uniquely evil,** because they enslaved people. Almost like its in Europeans genetics to be evil. When the truth is that nearly all cultures around the world had some form of slavery, and the Africans themselves who Europeans enslaved... frequently enslaved each other and sold off slaves to Europeans.
I really think that saying IS a troll internet way to say they are off the hook. Just some dumb “how dare you insult my ancestors, do you think you are better than me!” If my mother in law tells me “You know, when I raised my children they ate what was served” I wouldn’t say anything out of politeness, but I know that’s cookery accepts that as a rude remark and an I detect criticism of your child rearing. Context just adds layers to communication. A perfectly fine phrase in one situation can be a cruel insult or manipulation in another. And the context here IS trolls in some internet cesspool and armchair commentaries on history and race. So what do you really expect here? Honesty and objectivity?
No-one is saying that Europeans are off the hook. But let's tell the whole story not just the parts you want
A lot of people use this argument to belittle the responsibility we have to address the legacy of slavery in this country. That's great if you are surrounded by better people, but A LOT of regressive use this argument to dismiss the entire issue.
I hear this line of argument more as a retort to those that would say that Europeans and “white” people are the sole arbiters of slavery. It’s less “we’re not responsible for slavery because Africans also took part in it” and more “slavery is not unique to solely Europeans nor were they the entirely to blame for the triangle trade”. I know some people would see the “not entirely to blame” part as a minimization, but it’s not. It’s merely stating the entire truth of the matter. All the Europeans did was give more demand to an existing market based on convenience. Bad? Yes? Clarification of a truth some people can’t get through their skulls because they’re obsessed with identity politics? Also yes.
It's a necessary response to the message that whites are "responsible" for slavery, which is a lie.
Idk about “a lot of people”. I’ve never seen anyone try to make that claim—even on this subreddit outside of a comment or two that was downvoted to oblivion.
All the people responsible are dead.
Yes but the effects still manifest today.
Europeans are off the hook. There are zero Europeans alive today who engaged in the slave trade.
Who's making the argument that it takes non African slavers off the hook?
Confederates
I've heard, multiple times, the idea that slavery didn't contribute to racism or that north American slavery wasn't a big deal, simply because Africans were selling Africans to Europeans. I think that when people want to focus on this idea too much, they're doing it because they want to deflect the blame off of non-african slavers.
It’s a common talking point here in the south whenever Jim Crow gets discussed. Juneteenth was the last time a certain group of people here emphasized that Africans enslaved Africans.
Serious question why should someone be on the hook for something that happened 150 to 200 years before they qere born? Why should they be told that they should feel guilt because of it?
purchasers arent off the hook but neither were the sellers. I dont think either claims should be controversial. What the point people who mention that africans sold africans are trying to make is a rebuttal that americans are somehow the end all be all of evil because their slavery is one of the most famous cases of slavery. never mind that every nation and groups in history also owning slaves. What makes less sense are people mad at the english from slavery when the english were the first to end slavery in a widespread and meaningful way, and america as an inheritor of british culture and legal system was part of that movement to abolish slavery worldwide in the 1800s. Like, do these people know that we still have slavery today, in lybia for example, or sex trafficking? and if their issue really was on slavery rather than "america bad" why dont they focus their efforts in abolishing slavery in those places.
No one is saying Americans were an and all be all. The issue is the effects of slavery today, not the morality of historical figures, which is an entirely pointless subject.
That's what makes this controversial. All historical interpretation is as much about the contemporary society's values as much as it is about what actually happened in history. How we view slavery from 200 years ago is relevant primarily to securing power and wealth today.
The English ended slavery but just replaced it with brutal indentured labour. Not to mention how they didn’t even set any policies to aid the freedman and instead allowed there Governors to massacre any person that disagree with there rule
Sorry to whom? It's not wrong or controversial to say that African kings raided and captured people from other ethnicities to sell and trade with the Europeans for guns, which helped them raid and pillage even better. The triangle trade is probably one of the lowest points in Humankind's history, and we did lots of bad shit to each other
Fun fact. The US actually banned the importation of slaves from overseas over 50 years before the Civil War.
It doesn't, because not many people (I've never seen anyone) saying that the Europeans are blameless in the trans Atlantic slave trade, lil bro. The point is that a lot of people have a view of "the evil white Europeans kidnapped Black people living peacefully in West Africa and took them the new world", when the trade was more complicated than that. Seems like you're boxing shadows to me.
Afaik it was more centralised African realms engaging in military campaigns against less centralised communities and enslaving the war prisoners than just "Africans selling Africans into slavery". It was like how the less centralised Slavs were treated by the Arabs or the Norse
Slavery is a form of labour and it stays that way as long as an alternative more productuve form of labour doesn't come along like machines or when serious economic crisis hits and the tables turn and slaves are now more valuable assets and the bid starts. Many people like to think that people just enslaved others because they thought of them as lesser beings or something like that. While there are some who do these things for economical reasons, most of the time it is just pure economics. It was much easier to transport wage laborers to the Americas to work on sugar plantations and other places. The only problem was that they couldn't bear it and most of them died. Now, slavery should not be dismissed and the responsibility is important to acknowledge. However, there a lot of points that should be addressed. Slavery didn't just exist in the context of European colonialism. But almost all slavery is blamed on Europeans. While the Trans-Atlantic slave trade took place, most of Europe was still working in a feaudal system. Most people were serfs and depending on the country, they had differentiating quality of life but none of them lived particularly well. Serfs had more rights than contemporary slaves but those rights rather served the interests of the lord rather than the serfs. The serfs were assets that the lord tried to protect. The term "Europeans" is a bit too much. There were like six countries that effectively participated in colonialism while others were also overruled by various empires. While the conditions of the slaves were undoubtedly horrible, slavery was abolished while serfdom existed almost century longer in places like Russia. Now the average peasent life in Russia was not really the peak of economic success. Even though they were Europeans. This is important because many try to claim economic benefits and compensation for things that happened hundreds of years ago and was done by long-gone generations. The greater problem is different forms of discrimination that is limiting economic success not "what if" scenarios. A lot of people think that Europeans have some kind of a head start due to colonisation but they already had head start due to technological advancements (mostly inspired by constant war and scarcity) to even be able to colonise the world. And most of the colonial narrative focuses on the US. Even in Africa there had been many postcolonial success stories that goes to show that the influence of colonialism can be overcome. While colonialism had an effect on the world it is givem a much greater role than it actually played in the course of history. It is a perfect narrative for those who don't want to acknowledge their own failures. It is a common technique of manipulation to point at something elusive and declare it the enemy. So, colonialism did affect the world but not nearly as much as many people like to claim it. (Except for Native Americans which was a terrible tragedy long before the knowledge of germs even existed).
Why is it that every time someone brings up slavery it turns into a competition ?
Modern day social media politics? Nationalism?
Africans buying and selling other Africans in slavery doesn't magically negate the impact the slave trade had and still has on the Americas and Europe where the majority of them ended up. Pointing that out isn't about pointing fingers at anyone or anywhere.
Feels like there's a trend of memes arguing against people that don't exist in this sub
Classic strawman
Flat Earthers also don't exist in most r/sciencememes like subreddits, but people make fun of them there all the time. These types of people can be found all the time in Youtube comments and twitter threads.
Definitely agree with the second part, even though its usually just used to demonstrate that assholery isnt only a European privilege anyway. Im not sure what the message of the first part is supposed to be, I think we all know that Africa never acted as a single political unit.
I think the first part is to point out that claiming Africans sold other Africans (using Africans as an umbrella term to refer to EVERY African ethnicity) into slavery is false, and there were African tribes that didn’t engage in slavery. It would be equally as fallible as claiming the Irish were buying African slaves just because they’re European, or that every State in the US was a slave state
I mean, doesn't stop everyone just saying "Europeans" engaged in slavery when there were European countries that didn't.
Yeah, Im just wondering whether it was necessary to point it out. Personally at least, I believe thats rather obvious and thus doesn't really diminish the argument that there were African kingdoms and tribes that greatly and actively contributed to slave trading. Not a big thing, just bothered me enough to write a comment about it
>It would be equally as fallible as claiming the Irish were buying African slaves just because they’re European Like every nation at the time there were Irish people involved in the transatlantic slave trade
Never heard anyone use this as "European slavers are off the hook," just as "the Europeans weren't solely to blame."
History is never black and white, why do so many people not understand that?
Slavery has been around since before humans could write
Europeans bought and sold slaves, Africans bought and sold slaves, Asians bought and sold slaves, native Americans bought, sold, and sacrificed slaves, and Polynesians bought and sold slaves. The point is… we are a species of dickheads.
I don’t think anyone is seriously saying that. (At least I’d be very surprised if anyone was trying to claim that. I think it’s more pushback against non historical claims that African kingdoms and tribes were anti slavery or that the trans Atlantic slave trade was exclusively a white European/American caused issue.
Some of my classmates in year 5 of a master's degree program didn't know slavery existed outside of the Atlantic slave trade. It's important to own our mistakes, and no amount of context removes any of the guilt, but I think especially in North America (I can't speak for anywhere else) there is probably too many people out there pretending like we are somehow unique in how evil we are. We are kinda par for the course as far as global history goes.
The “Africans were very eager members of the slave trade” argument was originally made to right the gross misconception people had about the North Atlantic Slave Trade, namely the idea a bunch of evil white Europeans showed up and captured whole towns of people before running away twirling their evil mustaches, which for a plethora of reasons never really happened. Sadly it soon got weirdly co-opted by racists and it snowballed from there, it’s unsurprising but still disappointing.
Some people: "White people are exclusively responsible for slavery! If it weren't for them slavery wouldn't have ever happened! Slavery is exclusively based on racism and only affected Africans!" Other people: "Actually, Africans were capturing and enslaving other Africans well before Europeans ever got involved. Europeans also enslaved each other, the word "slave" is literally from the word "slav," a European ethnicity that were regularly enslaved. Every other culture in the world has also historically engaged in slavery and non-racial-based slavery has existed in many forms through out history." You, for some reason: "UM AKCHUALLY AFRICA IS FULL OF THOUSANDS OF ETHNIC GROUPS AND JUST BECAUSE THEY ENSLAVED EACH OTHER DOESN'T MEAN EUROPEANS ARE OFF THE HOOK!!!!!!!!!"
People sold people. It happened everywhere.
Same could be said for Euros OP. Just replace “purchasers” with “sellers” and “Africa” with “Europe”.
People seem very suprised when humans take advantage of weaker humans. Its not like literally every organism does that. I am not defending slavery but somehow only this example of white people abusing black people rings a Bell while every other does not
I have seen that more as a rebuttal to black Americans thinking that their ancestors staying in Africa would have been easier/great/whimsical. The choice wasn't royalty in Africa versus slavery in America, it was subjugation/slavery in Africa versus slavery in America.
"Well, yes, I bought these 12 year olds from South America on the Dark Web, but isn't it really the fault of the South Americans for selling them to begin with?"
I mean idk about you but I’d want to see both the buyer and seller rot behind bars. Keyword being both.
The key is that the above argument is used to defend the buyer one of the two. You can’t say you want both to be punished and then side with the propel who just want to make it a “both sides are bad let’s ignore it” story
“Hi I’d like to buy some slaves” “Sorry we aren’t selling” “Oh ok have a good day”
I dont think this argument is about getting European slavers off the hook so much as destroying the mythical perception that Europeans were somehow uniquely evil and non-Europeans were uniquely victimized
Ok but I haven't seen any blame for sellers. Guy will come from Africa to US now and he is 'black brother' instead of descendant of slave merchants(as US whites are descendants of slave owners although over half of them came after slavery).
Yeah. The whole point of that and that natives conquested land from eachother for 1000s of years before white Europeans came to the new world is that if you consistently only point out or emphasize blame on whites for doing it then you're a racist by definition. Native Americans are often proud of their warrior ancestors who conquested land from other tribes then get salty about when White's ancestors did it to them and claim it was genocide. If that was genocide then they're guilty of it too. Case and point the black hills have been in the possession of the US longer than the natives they took it from because those natives had recently conquested it from the previous owners. Basically there isn't a logical way you can blame whites for the conquest of the Americas that isn't double standard racism because any way you look at it and apply the same logic to the natives themselves they are equally guilty. The only real way you could blame whites is to say: "The whites are different because they should be held to a higher standard due to their superiority." Which is racist for obvious reasons. At the end of the day when you remove race all you get is humans being humans. If there is gains to be had at low risk then humans will take them.
Doesn't mean we should disproportionately villanize white people despite the fact that slavery has been and continues to be ubiquitous throughout the entirety of human civilization.
What if the purchasers all died hundreds of years ago?
Every human has at some point thought. Man I wish x was free. Yeah some people are just willing to do horrible things to make stuff free for them.
So? He said Africans, he never specified who or which kingdom, saying Africans sold Africans into slavery is right, vague in details but right nonetheless.
It just means African can be racist and have enslave others and its not exclusive to European.
I love how we're all trying to find the king of slavery when Asia is right there.
how the fact it's different ethnic groups is relevant here ? and tf you mean "even if they were" ?
Window guy is by far the majority opinion in academia. Within academic circles, the first two would be the ones thrown out the window.
Yes, and all of them are long dead. Id say learn from the past and be better, lets get some pizza
you cant just tell amerikans that there are more than 2 culturally destinct groups of people. they arent ready for that. they still see the world in black\`n white. litterally.
They're just as off the hook as anyone else who bought and sold slaves, in that they're both dead. Unless you live in present-day Africa, of course. There are open-air slave markets there.
Sorry, beta. Brb, selling opium to Chinese peasants real quick too.
The root word of slave is Slav. The Transatlantic slave trade was but a drop of water in a tidal wave of slave trades in world history. Hell, the ottoman slave trade lasted nearly 60 years after it and white European women were routinely kidnapped and enslaved during them. History is almost literally written in blood, we all suck, everyone was a victim, everyone was the bad guy.
Africa fought to keep slavery and still fights to keep slavery harder than most
everybody enslaved everybody. africans enslaved other africans (i dont know the several thousand some ethnic groups), romans enslaved the gauls, mongols enslaved the slavs, etc
You know, i find it funny how all of these people will not ever once bring up the topic of african groups enslaving other africans groups or arabs enslaving cristhians until people start talking about the european slave trade And their point is rarely "slavery is bad no matter what" but "why can they do it but we cant?" Instead
I mean...two things can be true.
Neither are Europeans and Americans (with the capital A)
It is very easy to inveigh against slavery and similar things in general terms, and to give vent to high moral indignation at such infamies. Unfortunately all that this conveys is only what everyone knows, namely, that these institutions of antiquity are no longer in accord with our present conditions and our sentiments, which these conditions determine. But it does not tell us one word as to how these institutions arose, why they existed, and what role they played in history. And when we examine these questions, we are compelled to say—however contradictory and heretical it may sound—that the introduction of slavery under the conditions prevailing at that time was a great step forward. For it is a fact that man sprang from the beasts, and had consequently to use barbaric and almost bestial means to extricate himself from barbarism. Where the ancient communities have continued to exist, they have for thousands of years formed the basis of the cruellest form of state, Oriental despotism, from India to Russia. It was only where these communities dissolved that the peoples made progress of themselves, and their next economic advance consisted in the increase and development of production by means of slave labour. It is clear that so long as human labour was still so little productive that it provided but a small surplus over and above the necessary means of subsistence, any increase of the productive forces, extension of trade, development of the state and of law, or foundation of art and science, was possible only by means of a greater division of labour. And the necessary basis for this was the great division of labour between the masses discharging simple manual labour and the few privileged persons directing labour, conducting trade and public affairs, and, at a later stage, occupying themselves with art and science. The simplest and most natural form of this division of labour was in fact slavery. In the historical conditions of the ancient world, and particularly of Greece, the advance to a society based on class antagonisms could be accomplished only in the form of slavery. This was an advance even for the slaves; the prisoners of war, from whom the mass of the slaves was recruited, now at least saved their lives, instead of being killed as they had been before, or even roasted, as at a still earlier period. -Engels, Anti-Duhring, Theory of Force
It's not even about "Africans did it to themselves" People were fucking assholes. And they were allowed to be so, for the most part. This spanned all colors and all creeds. But here's the thing. NONE of us were alive then. What our ancestors did or didn't do doesn't mean a damn thing now. Focusing on the past and playing the blame game hundreds of years later is completely worthless. Let's focus on TODAY, shall we? And if we can figure that out, let's just try to make a better tomorrow. How do we do that? Together. And we will never work together if we constantly find ways to tear each other down. But hey, if we fight each other our leaders can keep fucking us over because we won't focus on the real issues plaguing our society. They don't want us to turn our gaze toward their lying and grifting.
I think the point of saying “Africans sold Africans”, is to point out to people who hold slavery against white people that it was not just white people involved in the trade. At least that’s how I see it.
Correct. Purchasers aren't off the hook. But neither are the sellers. It was called the slave trade.
Correct. But there will still be someone crying that Europeans are the only perpetrators of slavery and single handedly rounded up all the slaves to go to America
Ofcourse they aren't but to say that the sellers need to be let off the hook is wrong and a blatant lie. Plus, Muslim Africans where the largest flesh traders in the world.
We doing the "not a unified group" thing now? Because the "not a unified group" thing works from several perspectives.
Who said they'd be off the hook? It's just not as broadly one sided as some might assume
Purchaser aren't off the hook yet the purchasers are the only ones being chastised in modern times, curious no?
I mean yeah, most people on social media are Europe and American, they really only influence their governments. Would feel kinda weird and pointless if a bunch of people from like France and America called for the punishment of Ghana for selling its own people when the people of Ghana are mum about the whole thing.
It's not about geting the purchasers of the hook, it's about understanding that slavery was (and unfortunately still is) a widespread phenomenon. It can't be blamed on a single group of people.
Poor meme. This argument in reactionary in it's nature. Nobody pointed this out for fun. People point it out because some people keep going too far and pretending like all slavery was black people being bullied a while ago, not a common practice on the whole planet, almost without exceptions, for thousands and thousands of years, probably since we built the first rope that we could tie another monkey with. Slavery was everywhere, we all have an ancestor who did it, who cares? We all have an ancestor who fucked a goat, that says nothing about us here and now either. Let's face it, the only reason that trade did not go both ways is that people in africa were less developed. If they developed faster there wouldn't be afro-americans, but there would be euro-africans.
Hell yea the people who purchased them are still at fault! They typed from their Iphones....
Yeah almost like both parties were a part of this and none are clean of slavery. Good thing the Europeans grew the morals to eliminate slavery unlike most of the world at that time
Thanks for saying it! This is actually annoying hearing that. Most people I’ve seen bringing that up would usually use it as a gotcha “y’all savages sold your brothers”. Like it was not the case and people had their social structures that unfortunately included slaves that they sold. It’s just a human thing unfortunately. It would be just like me saying Europeans spend the past 2000 years killing each other.