Thursday, August 13, 2009

The Middle Eastern Passage

When most people think of the African slave trade, they picture evil white men — for example, prominent members of the Adams family in Boston — who purchased slaves on the west coast of Africa and shipped them to South America, the Caribbean, and the United States.

But those guys weren’t your typical slave traders. These were:

Arab slave trade
“Group of slaves with Arab men”

It’s important to remember that the bulk of the slave trade went in the opposite direction — from Africa to the Arabian peninsula. The Arabs have been enslaving Africans since prehistoric times, and the slave trade in Saudi Arabia wasn’t abolished until the 1960s. An underground traffic in slaves continues to this day, particularly in Mauritania and other countries in western and northern Africa.

The Arabs were the primary suppliers of slaves — the wholesalers, if you will — for European-owned ships that made the Middle Passage. The Arabs had long-established raiding-and-trading routes in Africa that no European could hope to match, so they continued to dominate the market.

The photo above was taken in 1868, and the flow of slaves from Africa to Arabia continued for almost a century after that.

Here’s the account that was posted along with the photo:
- - - - - - - - -
“Group of slaves with Arab men”

Zanzibar, 1850-1890

The Indian Ocean Slave trade evolved around the Indian Ocean basin. Slaves were taken from mainland East Africa and sold in markets in the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf. In contrast to the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, the Indian Ocean Slave Trade was much older dating back from at least the second century C.E. until the early twentieth century. For example, the oldest written document from the East Africa Coast, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, describes a small trade in slaves around the second century C.E.

The idea that Muslims, particularly Arabs, are somehow friends and comrades in suffering with American blacks is the Big Lie of the 21st century. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving black Africans for more than a millennium.

The truth is that black African Muslims have the lowest status of any group in Islam, and are held in special contempt by Arabs.

The truth is that Muslim immigrants to the United States have appropriated the rhetoric of civil rights for their own ends, and are cynically exploiting African Americans in an attempt to Islamize America.

You won’t hear much about these truths in the mainstream media. It’s not a story that people want to hear, because it doesn’t fit the “dominant narrative” of white patriarchy and oppression.

For more information the African slave trade, visit this page on the same website.

Hat tip: spackle.


Dymphna said...

What has always amazed me is the fact that though slavery did indeed exist here, there was no castration of Africans imported to this country. Families were often cruelly torn apart at the whim and economics of slave-holders, but there were exceptions to that.

Where do you see a thousand years of African blood in Arab countries? You don't. The men were often killed and boys were castrated. Many of them died as a result. The women were used and discarded. They disappeared and another generation, fresh from Africa, replaced them as though they had never been.

Yet here in the US it is hard to find a black person who has *no* white blood. Perhaps the lately-arrived Haitians are a current exception?

The tensions between whites and blacks are very old, but they can be transcended and frequently are. There is money to be made by the race mongers -- e.g., Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, etc.

But what is ironic and truly pathetic is the ahistorical and misbegotten idea of burdening children in the US with Muslim-African names. What a sick joke on the victims of their own ignorance.

mace said...


There is also another slave trade that Moslems seem to have "forgotten",the trade in Europeans captured by Moslem pirates from North Africa and sold as slaves throughout the Islamic world. From the 7th century until the 19th century these pirates menaced Mediterranean Europe and ventured into the Atlantic, even English coastal towns were raided. Some historian have suggested that as many as 1 million Europeans ended their lives as slaves of the Moslems. Westerners, or people of European ancestry seem to be the stock villians these days, this is fuelled by ignorance of history, of course.

WAKE UP said...

The myth that a few boatloads of white sailors managed to enslave a whole continent is now so exploded that anyone who still subscribes to it is either nuts, or running a self-serving political agenda.

It never was true, and the most compelling fact of all is this: slavery existed as a cultural norm in the Third, African and Arab worlds long before we showed up - and after we ceased our relatively brief, regrettable, participation, it continued to exist AND STILL DOES, in almost every NON-Western country.

The depth of hypocrisy on this topic is so profound as to be seriously psychopathological - EVERYONE involved is in denial about it.

Anonymous said...

Africans were also involved in the slave trade - in fact the primary source. Tribal chiefs soon found, that prisoners they took on raids could be sold for far greater profit then whatever they did with them originally. It could thus be argued, that the moral debasement of Africans was far greater then that of Arabs or Europeans.

We could of course cease pointing the finger and look at it in different way. Slavery has existed since time immemorial. It was a facet of war - prisoners of war or raids, became slaves. The amount of traffic was proportional to the warring capacity of a tribe or empire - supply, and its economical usage- demand.

What Europeans did was that they offered a better price, as European economies were developed or going through the first stages of industrialisation. They were just industrially developed enough to require large amounts of manpower, either to man the machines, or to replace the men in the fields who were now manning the machines, but not developed enough NOT to require slavers. The need as well as the ability to acquire slaves, led to the huge increase in slave traffic. It is noteworthy that it was Britain that went through this stage first, as it was the prime industrial nation. And again, Britain was the first to ban slavery, just as soon as its industrialisation became developed enough not to require slaves. It could attract the same manpower just by paying them, without attracting the newly developed opprobrium attached to slavery.

A similar situation holds in the drug trade. Western economies generate huge wealth, allowing the price of any contraband to become more profitable, and this then increases the volume in traffic, as long as the demand remains.


as mace said:...even English coastal towns were raided.

The fishermen and coastal dwellers of Britain and Ireland lived in terror of being kidnapped by muslim pirates and sold into slavery in North Africa. Whole villiges on the south-western coast of Ireland could be found abandoned, depopulated. Hundreds of thousands along the Atlantic coasts of Europe met wretched deaths on the Barbary Coast in this way.
Investigated by the late Professor Robert Rees Davies (1938-2005)

Sean O'Brian said...

The main players in the slave trade were the Arabs, the Touaregs, the Berbers, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British, and the African tribes themselves.

The anti-slavery movement in the West originated among Christians, and in the Bible the Children of Israel are repeatedly enjoined to remember that they were themselves slaves in Egypt, which if heeded amounts at the very least to an injunction to treat slaves with kindness and without cruelty, and could be interpreted as a condemnation of slavery in general.

One of Abraham Lincoln's frequent arguments against slavery was an appeal to Genesis 3:19, “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread.” In May 1864 he wrote to a delegation of Baptists, “To read in the Bible, as the word of God himself, that ‘In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,’ and to preach there-from that, ‘In the sweat of other mans faces shalt thou eat bread,’ to my mind can scarcely be reconciled with honest sincerity.”

By contrast there has never been a Muslim Wilberforce, as Islam institutionalises slavery. I don't want to spam this post, so I'll just list one Koranic injunction and one hadith below:

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

Bukhari Vol. 7-#734: "....At the door of the [Muhammad's] room there was a slave to whom I went and said, "Ask the permission for me to enter".....

Anonymous said...

As mace pointed out, Barbary pirates pillaged Mediterranean Europe. Whole populations were carried off as slaves. Sicily and Malta, were the worst to suffer.

I think it is a bit hypocritical to apply moral standards of the 20th century to attitudes that prevailed for centuries before.

Slavery was considered the norm in all societies throughout history. It arose from conquest and the acquisition of prisoners. Prisoners could be massacred or made to work for the victors. That was the choice - they could not be treated as equals to the victors - that leads to impossible situation. In a way "slavery"
was the more humane option.

Only a society supremely confident in its powers, its ability to not require forced labour, could afford the moral luxury of abandoning slavery - a morality that Christianity provides. Britain was that Christian power, and had the will and power to impose its morality worldwide.

In a multi-polar world, lacking a common morality, I dont see how the worldwide abolition of slavery can take place.

joe six-pack said...

I have felt for a long time that we had paid the price for having the evil of slavery in our own country. The U.S. Civil war killed more than a million of us and ruined even more lives. I believe that bill was paid in full.

Czechmade said...

The majotity of white people (think of Central Europe) had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

So call it openly "racist" and do not think that those few nations mentioned above are simply "whites".

Use it as a good argument. It is a pure accident that we are not represented on daily basis in the world media. So tell it instead of us.

spackle said...

Thanks for posting this Baron. I came upon that great photo and site while doing some research as to the countries of origin (as of today) of American blacks. I always knew about the Muslim slave trade but had no idea how long it had been going on.

Unknown said...

Getty Images has a few images of the African slave trade and almost all of the images of people who captured and sold the slaves were wearing Taqiyahs or keffiyahs or similar muslim headgear.

Getty Images

There are some unrelated images in amongst the photos I linked to but just go through the four pages and you'll see a few relevant images.

Rocha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rocha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason Pappas said...

Excellent comments. Let me add a few of my own.

Muslim slave-trade from the sub-Saharan was ten times greater than the Iberian slave trade when aggregated across history. The Iberian slave trade was ten times greater than the Anglo-American slave trade in aggregate. That’s not surprising given the Muslim dominance and influence in the Iberian Peninsula over many centuries.

British and American slave trading was minuscule in comparison to the Muslim slave trade and the Muslim inspired Iberian slave trade.

The sub-Saharan slave trade was just one front. The Muslims were central to the Slav slave trade, the Mediterranean slave trade (mentioned above), and the Hindu slave trade. See Serge Trifkovic’s work describing the horror of Muslim slave trading of Hindus.

Dymphna said...


What would be of great value is an ethnographic study of how the various European countries related to the indigenes and the blacks that they sent to their colonies.

Spanish conquerors seemed to have less problem with intermarriage. The English sneered at any of their civil servants who "went native". The Americans fell somewhere in between.

Mark Twain wrote a wonderful satire of American mores as they applied to blacks and "miscegnation". He's heavy-handed about it, but "Puddin' Head Wilson" is a biting, funny book.

The old arguments in this country, that racial mixing doesn't "work" because the offspring of such unions are rejected by both kin groups, has become as dated as washtubs.

Of course, if you match someone from the US with someone from a tribe in Kenya, you will have tensions. Which is maybe why Obama didn't go to his white grandma's funeral? I'm just guessing but it was an odd absence considering that it was she who raised him. Let's see if he makes it to Kenya for any family funerals.

Conservative Swede said...


If I were you, and had realized, two minutes after, that I wanted to add something to the comment I just posted. Then I would have: 1) Deleted the first comment (after copying it), and 2) Posted a new comment including the addendum.

In that way it does not only count as one comment, but you are guaranteed that the text comes in the right order. As it is now, the Baron might actually take your first comment and put it under the second one, in order to fix the long link you posted without formatting.

Moderation has to be simple. A moderator cannot start taking in account all sorts of special reasons to post more than 4 comments. That's a slippery slope that is bound to end up in a messy situation.

At least, that's how I would do it.


Regarding what you say, I find it highly interesting: that, in Brazil, you may not call black people black but must call them morenos. It's the first time this happened outside of the Anglosphere! In the Hispanic world they still call black people 'negros' (= blacks). Even in Sweden we call them 'svarta' (= blacks) (while for some reason 'svartingar' is considered bad to say).

As far as I understand this is a brand new phenomenon in Brazil. How far back is it dated? How much has it got to do with president Lula? Could we expect this to spread to the Hispanic parts of Latin America, as part of the ongoing socialist wave across the continent? Maybe it's already there in Venezuela?

PS. You've got two bullets left. Use them wisely. E.g. your addendum only said:
Just as an addendum and please Dymphna don't count it on my allowed four. I call black a black person or a mullato because pure blacks are rare and found mainly on the northeast. Officially blacks are close to 5% of Brazil only.

Consider deleting it, to get an extra comment to use.

Anonymous said...

First published by the Barnabas Fund in Barnabas
One of the ways I have seen Muslim leaders promote Islam is by talking about the glory of the Islamic civilization. The Islamic empire is said to be a system of justice and responsible for everything good in the world. Very often when these claims are made, the Western Christian civilization is criticised as corrupt and brutal. This approach to promoting Islam is successful for two reasons:
Most Westerners feel some shame over the history of their empires, and so when a speaker attacks Western culture they acknowledge these faults.
Most Westerners have little knowledge of Islamic history, and so assume that what the Islamic leader says about the Islamic empire must be true.

In this article I invite you to begin to learn about Islam's involvement in slavery. Islam has had a major role in the history of slavery beginning with Muhammad, and taking slaves from Europe across to Indonesia and down into Africa. But unlike the Western empires, Islam has never apologised and feels no shame. In fact Muslim leaders boast of their empire and hide its corruption and brutality.


Conservative Swede said...

As Dymphna touched upon, the slaves in America were treated very humanely in comparison. A relation of caring and respect could often develop between the black slave and the white owner. But a modern Western European cannot allow himself to know that, he must see this slavery and all of its expressions as evil evil evil. And neither an American today either, at least not under the current Presidency.

By not castrating the slaves America today has got some 40 million descendants of these slaves living among them, as a people within the people, who forever hold a grudge against their former imprisoners, no matter how well they are treated or fawned upon. There are fundamental reasons of human psychology why it is so.

In addition this made America the international scapegoat of "evil" slavery. It's very simple: people associate slavery with America, since in America you can see loads of traces of slavery, such as 40 million black people (in essence every time we meet a black American we have the issue of slavery at the back of our head). Nobody thinks much of the slavery by Britain, France, etc. Or by the Arabs. Since there's nothing there to remind us. Btw Rocha, I think the blackness found in Yemen can be because of its climate zone, quite as for black people in southern India (look at your own map).

So this has been the reward for the kindness Americans shown to their slaves.

Certain things should be done properly, or not at all. E.g. going to war. Either one abstains from it or one does it properly in the responsible way. Doing it as a half-measure is the worst thing. Same with slavery, in my view. The half-measure has the worst consequences (as seen above). Treat them kindly by all means, but make sure to castrate them. Or better, have no slaves.

I think this is one more example of how this sort of goodness leads to not only wrong but potentially devastating results.

Zenster said...

...the Adams family in Boston...

[cue music]

Islam is so spooky
the Qur'an is so kooky
Muslims act Pachuky
Mohammad's menagerie

Their mosques are proctodeums
Terrorist mausoleums
Neanderthal ta deums
Mohammad's menagerie

Dead meat

So get your bomber's vest on
A goat that you can prod on
Cruise missiles will soon fall on
Mohammad's menagerie

(With apologies to Vic Mizzy)

Dymphna said...

Ah, but Conservative Swede it's not that simple. American blacks form part of the backbone of our culture. How monochromatic and crippled we would be if we were only descended from European stock? (BTW didn't "slave" come from "slav" because the Arabs took so many Slavs as slaves?)

Black people are part of the warp and woof of the fabric of American culture. Just because the whoring press goes after the ugly stories does not mean that all race relations are like that. In the North (when I lived there), segregation via housing enclaves was rigid. In the South, especially in the rural areas, this doesn’t hold. The only remaining separation is in churches. Historically black churches in our Episcopal diocese do not want to give up their separation. Ironically, when you go to the nearest big town, there are some integrated Episcopal churches.

Catholic churches in America are often racially mixed, without fanfare, though that didn’t happen easily. It’s an accomplished fact today. OTOH, Clarence Thomas, our Supreme Court justice, was the only black seminarian when he attended. The racism he encountered embittered him and as an adult he belongs to another denomination. However, he credits the Sisters of St. Francis in Savannah with stoking his ambition. My aunt was one of those. I saw pictures of Sister Virgilius in his autobiography.

Just finished a review by John McWhorter on Nora Zeale Hurston in City Journal. She was a Floridian, black and hard-scrabble poor. I've only read excerpts of "Their Eyes were Watching God", but I intend to try the library this afternoon. Hurston was not a grievance monger. She felt that everyone had their burdens and it was up to the individual to make their way in the world.

The race issue intrigued her. She was almost a participant-observer in that respect, but then she studied under Boaz (not a radical, though). She saw through the big gummint "Massah" complex:

I am not tragically colored. There is no great sorrow dammed up in my soul. I do not belong to the sobbing school of Negrohood who hold that nature has given them a dirty deal...

As McWhorter says, her politics were those of Clarence Thomas and she'd have been at home on Fox News.

McWhorter himself is black, handsome as sin, and a wonderful linguist, even if he is in the bowels of academe. The B and I have listened to his CD course,The Story of Language.

BTW, one of my favorite of our former commenters, whom I cannot contact anymore, is a black economist named Starling David Hunter. He was at MIT, then went to Dubai to teach economics. Now he’s living in Sweden. I really miss him – get to keep up with him because he still comments on Belmont Club.

Unknown said...

Dyphna: "The old arguments in this country, that racial mixing doesn't "work" because the offspring of such unions are rejected by both kin groups, has become as dated as washtubs."

It might be dated but is it wrong?

Look at the crime statistics for mixed race persons an you'll see that they are more likely to become the victims of violence by family members, friends and even strangers.

Studies on mixed race persons have shown that they exhibit the worst behaviors of both races.

Plight of Mixed Race Adolescents:

“Strikingly, on fifteen out of the twentyone variables relating to bad behavior mixed race adolescents exhibit worse behavior than both of their single race counterparts. Behavior at school by mixed race adolescents generally mirrors that of blacks, except with regard to exerting effort and skipping school – two dimensions on which mixed race children are significantly worse than blacks. The bad behavior of mixed race children stands out even more clearly outside of school. With the exception of watching television (which blacks do more of), mixed race adolescents are the worst or essentially tied for worst on every other behavior considered. This is true whether the risky behaviors are those more common to whites (e.g. drinking and smoking) or to blacks (e.g. sex and violence). Mixed race adolescents roughly occupy the lower envelope of good behaviors of blacks and whites. In a similar manner Choi et al (2006), using data from four middle schools in Seattle, WA, find that multi-racial adolescents are at greater risk for substance abuse.

The Plight of Mixed Race Adolescents


Crime and mixed race persons:

Victimization rate by victim-offender relationship, by type of crime and selected victim characteristics - Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 and over:

Victims of crimes of violence by relatives:

White only: 1.7, Black only: 2.1, Two or more races: 18.8 (11 times as high as white only)


Victims of crimes of violence by persons well known to the victim:

White only: 4.6, Black only: 7.6, Two or more races: 21.2 (4.6 times as high as white only)


Victims of crimes of violence by casual acquaintances:

White only: 2.9, Black only: 3.4, Two or more races: 8.4 (2.9 times as high as white only)


Victims of crimes of violence by strangers:

White only: 9.5, Black only: 10.4, Two or more races: 30.8 (3.2 times as high as white only)


Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tables (pdf)
(pages 19 and 48)

Rocha said...


"Where do you see a thousand years of African blood in Arab countries? You don't."

There are exceptions to this rule, in Yemen black blood is found everywhere and it's noted by ethnographers see the map at as one example. But the rest of your comment it's standing.

Even in Brazil race profitters changed the public perception, we used to see ourselves as a white and mestizo nation with an emphazis on mestizo. Now black people call each other black but whites have to call them morenos i.e. brunette what i find ridiculous because i'm a brunette and i don't have a drop of negro blood on myself.

What i call black is a black person or a mullato because pure blacks are rare and found mainly on the northeast. Officially blacks are close to 5% of Brazil only, mulattos are about 20%. again they are mainly concentred on the northeast,

spackle said...

Dymphna said:

"How monochromatic and crippled we would be if we were only descended from European stock? "

How so? Could you elaborate?

Conservative Swede said...


It was the Romans who enslaved the Slavs, so that's where the word comes from, in Latin sclavus.

It's highly ironic how it's considered okay to use a name for Slavic people suggesting that they are fit to be slaves -- which is of course as offensive as it is untrue -- while naming black people after their skin colour, which is an evidently true and neutral way of describing them, makes people get their shorts in such a terrible twist.

Black people are part of the warp and woof of the fabric of American culture.

Yes, that's how it ended up. And thus this has been a given for you in the society you have grown up in and identify with. And nothing is black or white of course (no pun intended), but as I have started to point out there are serious problems with this. I haven't even finished my argument, I will do so in my blog because it's a much bigger discussion. But what it comes down to is the kind of moral code, fit for an individual, which does not scale up to the state level.

You know I'm a great fan and practitioner of rhythmical music and dancing with roots in black culture (much to the grief of Lawrence Auster btw, who sees this as decadent and dangerous). But you could have had your Blues, Jazz and Lindy Hop, without making the black people citizens of your country.

Quite as we could have had kebab, baklava and water pipes in Europe, without making the Muslims citizens of our countries.

Just because the whoring press goes after the ugly stories does not mean that all race relations are like that.

The core problem is that the descendants of the people you enslaved will never, as a group, forgive you for this.

And I'd say that the role of the US media here is rather the opposite of what you suggest. James Fulford at VDARE reports that according to the Associated Press Style Guide, used by almost all papers in the US, it's a matter of policy to suppress the truth about race and crime. In fact NY Times instituted its policy of covering up black crime all the way back in 1946. (1946 is an interesting year, I have a theory of why this year.)

How monochromatic and crippled we would be if we were only descended from European stock?

I think we should be careful how we express these things, so that it does not become an echo of liberals arguing for multiculturalism.

Here I discuss this, essentially calling myself a "hippie cosmopolitan", but at the same time pointing out how this does not scale up, thus providing some background for the Baron's excellent article Darwin at Work, which I also linked above.

Finally, you mention several prominent black people. But there are also several prominent people of Muslim background. In neither case it is an argument for admitting them citizenship as a group.

Dymphna said...


Where are the class factors in these studies? That is the crucial difference. My mixed race cousins are not "victims". One of them is a motorcycle cop in California.

Shelby Steele probably has some interesting numbers to share on the subject. Like Obie, he's the offspring of a black and a white parent. He's either at the Cato Institute or AEI.

Those who fare worst when it comes to opportunity are those with the darkest skin --on average. That includes all-black environments. Morehouse College has its social strata divided by color, though that fact is hotly denied.

No, I think crime in general is a class phenomenon, a stable family phenomenon, and to some extent, a reflection of economics. It's not a simple calculus because it can never take into account the resilient child who rises "beyond his raising" as they say here.

Unknown said...

Dyphna, the study I linked to earlier accounted for income differences but there was little difference in household income between single-race blacks and mixed-race blacks.

"Mixed race adolescents have family incomes similar to black children and have the same likelihood of having a father in the home. The parents of mixed race children are less likely to have been married than those of other races (although rates of ever married are higher than for these mothers than for blacks). The mothers of mixed race children are younger on average, but slightly more likely to be a college graduate"

Here's another article on mixed race kids:
"Powell and his colleague Simon Cheng at the University of Connecticut found one exception to the "biracial advantage." Black father/white mother families tend to invest fewer resources into kids than do black monoracial couples and white monoracial couples." Live Science

Rocha said...

Conservative Swede,

Thanks to the tips to say the truth i only realized that there was a trashcan icon on my comments after you pointed it. Thanks.

CS, Black i.e. Preto become somewhat pejorative in the sixties being slowy replaced by Negro (pitch black, nobler use)by the upper classes and the black rights movement. The black population did not started to use it but accepted the new pejorative meaning of preto. So they kept using it between thenselves like blacks use nigger in USA but the younger ones frowned the use from others. Older people in their 60's and 70's still use it, my mother used to make white people blush when callin a black for information "pretinho! pretinho! can you give me directions?"

So it has nothing to do with Lula but everything to do with the left. What Lula goverment did was fuse the term Preto (Black) and Mestiço(Pardo) in Negro (Ebony?) to make the Brazilian census show a black majority (since the blacks and whites numbers are decreasing replaced by pardo).

About the spanish world the same thing happened but i do not know when. Take the wikipedia spanish text:

"En español el término ((negro)) es de introducción relativamente reciente. En la literatura clásica se les suele llamar ((prieto)) o ((etíopes)). El racismo utilizó los términos ((de color)) y ((negrito)), que luego vinieron a ser considerados eufemismos."

"In spanish the term ((negro)) is of relative recent introduction. In the classic literature they are called ((prietos)) o ((etíopes)). The racism used the terms ((de color)) and ((negrito)), that soon were considered eufemisms."

Hope it helped.

Rocha said...


Or just intermarry them. Like the Brazilians did. The "politica of branqueamento" (whiteness politics) of late XIX century brought blacks in Brazil from 70% to 5% in the middle XX century. You know white + black = mullato + white = quarteirão + white = oitavão + white = near white + white = white.

But i do perceive a difference about race in the homeland or in a homeland in formation

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

It's information like this that should be brought more to the attention among afro-americans even in the prison system so that they might not be so eager to embrace islam and not only the stuff about black africans being enslaved by the arabs but that they also enslaved white european in great numbers as well. Not to forget to mention the arabs view on their fellow black muslims as on the bottom of the power pyramid. That is pure racism if nothing else in my book!

No matter how much some or eben many black americans despise whites, for just being light-skinned and thus as the PC MC-crowd sells to us as guilt towards the oppressed blacks through history. Some of our ancestors was bad people indeed, no doubt about that but we where not the only ones and not the worst. At least us whites, most of us feel shame for what they did but the point is as the article clearly points out to us, the arabs do not feel shame for this. Never did back then and do not do it now either. And the reason is quite simple as slavery is sanctioned without any doubt both in the quran itself and also in the hadiths.

Conservative Swede said...

1, 2, 3, 4,

I have posted an article at my blog, expanding on the discussion of this thread (not of the article though):

America as the birthplace of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness

Since this is my fourth comment, anything I say from now I will say there. Anyone who find this matter interesting (or have used up his 4 comments) is welcome to come and discuss at my blog.

In case anyone answers in this thread what I have been writing here, I will answer that over there.


And while I'm still here:


Thanks for the historical survey. Very interesting. It's funny that 'negro' was considered a change to something more PC in Spanish/Portuguese. And that 'coloured' was considered worse.

It's good that you found the trash can button. However, regarding my advice. I'd say it's okay with such deletions if it's done quickly. If it's done late (in order to make place for a fourth comment) I'd consider it abuse, since it would destroy the discussion threads, and would be a way to try and surround the forum rules. At least that's how I would judge if, had I been the moderator.

laine said...

Dymphna, our admiration for some (usually conservative) blacks as individuals should not blind us to the group dynamics. To paraphrase Ann Landers, "is the United States better off with them or without them?"

The objective answer would have to be without them. Better they should still be in Africa. The net result for the United States is loss of a little "oomph" along with a lot of bitterness and crime. Much of the bitterness is unjustified on the facts, many outlined in this thread. However, there is no budging the psychological mind set that they have been wronged and that whites have to make it up to them for all eternity. Other (immigrant) Americans have suffered worse, but have moved on. It is ironic that their taxes help pay for eternal black grievances.

All American statistics except sports statistics are improved if you subtract the black community. Gun crime drops to international levels, the Social welfare burden diminishes, educational achievement rises as do health indicators.

The posters above who said that blacks will never let the past go (and are historically illiterate, eternally damning whites while embracing the names and even religion of their foremost slavers) are correct.

It's been postulated that America will pay for her slavery sins (in a way the mega-slavers will not) by the death of her at the hands of her slave descendants.

When you look at the 95% racist black vote for Obama, it put him over the top. He is a one man cyclone of destruction. I don't think the United States can ever regain the ground he's sowing with socialist salt. His "tribe" just as in Africa has been rewarded with top positions and even the lowliest among them expect plusher handouts. The triumvirate of Obama, Holder and Gates have set back race relations at least 50 years.

The 5% of American blacks who did not vote for Obama and/or are excellent in their fields would have gravitated here anyway as all other immigrant groups did for education and opportunity so we would not have had to do without them.

The price America alone is paying for a universal sin is too high.

Afonso Henriques said...

"The idea that Muslims, particularly Arabs, are somehow friends and comrades in suffering with American blacks is the Big Lie of the 21st century. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Baron, we must get one thing staight. The Northern Half of Africa *is* muslim. And it has been a part of the muslim world for long. There's no difference between "black Africans" and "muslims" when the black Africans are themselves muslims.
Another fact is that "Islamic Civilisation" is a great one and has achieved quiet a while during it's existance. The same can't be said of some "pure Sub-Saharan Civilisation". That's why some African Americans feel they were part of something big before they were transported to Americans. It's normal.

"The truth is that Muslims have been slaughtering and enslaving black Africans for more than a millennium."

This is redundant. The Africans themselves enslaved each other (just lay an eye on Haiti) like no one did.
I mean, the Romans enslaved other Europeans, like the Greeks and I bet the ancient Germans...
But I believe Africans were the ones never to evolve from the our tribe must enslave the weaker tribes mentality.

You will not turn Africa against the muslims. No one cares about Darfur or Nigeria. Not even in Africa.

After reading my comment, I don't know if I was clear enough so here it goes:

It's not only the mediterranean coast of Africa that is muslim. The Northern Half of Africa is muslim and that extends to the South of the Sahara.
The muslim Africans see their islamic culture as their own, like hm... Europeans see Christianity as their own.
Thus, some Africans are really muslims.
Africans are better under muslims than under "Mugabes" (this because Sub-Saharan Africans are tribal and as such virtually all African countries are deeply torn apart by multiculturalism. The Sub-Saharan leader should be the tribal chief.)

Once Europeans are bad, an Africa united under Islam is the best for Africans because if it is so there will be no tribal or multiculturalism related violence. (This is the thinking behinde States like Sudan or even Lybia and Egypt)

Afonso Henriques said...

"The myth that a few boatloads of white sailors managed to enslave a whole continent is now so exploded that anyone who still subscribes to it is either nuts, or running a self-serving political agenda."


Your name suits your words just right.

Afonso Henriques said...

I'll comment less, but I won't let pass some absurdities, Dymphna. At least not when I think my word can do some good.

"The Iberian slave trade was ten times greater than the Anglo-American slave trade in aggregate. That’s not surprising given the Muslim dominance and influence in the Iberian Peninsula over many centuries.
(...) British and American slave trading was minuscule in comparison to the Muslim slave trade and the Muslim inspired Iberian slave trade."

Mr. Pappas,
I truly do not know how many times was the Iberian Slave Trade greater than that of the British. We can agree that the Iberian one was greater though.
But I can also tell you that the greater dimension of Iberian slavery has nothing to due with the muslim influence.
What that muslim influence did was to normalise slavery in Iberia proper once there was a war against muslims in Iberia from 711 to 1492 and those who were caught in the middle were made slaves.
Later, the Christians made some muslims slaves.
After the expuslion of muslims and Jews of the Peninsula, the North African raids for slavery in the Peninsula got much more severe and in that time it was natural to hear that one's cousin went to North Africa as a slave.
All this was the "muslim influence in Iberia" that you speak of.

Another thing, is the slavery related to colonialism.
The Portuguese were the first to take the Reconquista to North Africa in 1415.
Soon after the Portuguese and Spaniards started to colonise the Islands of the Atlantic: Canary, Madeira and Azores. The Portuguese failed to colonise Cape Verde properly due to an excessive and continuous importation of slaves to the island.
In 1492 the modern State of Spain was founded and in the same year the last muslim kingdom of Iberia ceased to exist for good. In 1492 also, Cristóvão Colombo discovered the Americas. In 1497 the Portuguese controled the Cape in South Africa and the following year were the first Europeans to arrive in India by sea.
In 1500 the Brazil is discovered and in 1507 Magalhães discovers the passage to the Pacific Ocean through the Atlantic across the Tierra del Fuego.

The colonial Iberian slave trade was bigger because of the scarcity of whites across the Iberian empires and the virtually absense of white women there too. Slaves of both sexes were needed, or the crown would lost the profitable colonies to the Dutch, French and British pressures. It has nothing to due with muslims.

@ Czechmade, you did not enslave people because you were too buisy being controled by German(ic)s, Russians or Turks. That's precisely my concept of Easten European: Russians and those who have been under German(ic)s and Turks before 1918.
Greece and Finland encopassed here. It is not something *bad*, it is just something different.

Rocha said...

Again i'm bitting myself so feel free to delete it.

The Germans, not the Romans invaded and conquered the Sclavus tribe. The latin word for slave is Servus wich in english is serf and is on the root of servant. It brings ligh to what the serfs really were. and to what catholic mass means as servant of god. In reality white slaves were common in all europe untill the 1500's. We have documents telling about them in England, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, Byzantium, Ireland, Russia, etc. Crowell slaved thousands of irish in 1650's and send them to the caribeean, they and their descendents were free in the early 1800's and migrated en masse to southern USA.

The mortality of colonials in their first years was very high in Brazil, Goa, Africa. So even if you got a Portuguese woman it could be for a very short time. Negroes did not had this problem because africa is already tropical.
Besides that the natives were a problem. Without diesise to drop native numbers the Portuguese never managed to enter the interior of africa untill the XIX century. In Brazil the ferocity of the attacks diminished ONLY when marriage between portuguese men and indian women occured. It's harder to KILL THEM ALL when it means killing your daughter, sister.

Eastern and Central Europeans DID try to make their own colonies, the most famous are in north america by the swedish and dutch but germans tried to make Klein-Venedig in 1530's. And Courland (at the time a provice of Poland-Lithuania) tried to establish colonies in Tobago and Gambia.

*** ******** said...

people tend to forget that the western world's first interaction with islam was in the form of the muslims capturing european sailors and taking them as slaves....b/c they were it was fine and dandy.

Acharya S said...

A couple of years ago, the History Channel (or one of the others) aired a disturbing story about Capt. James Riley, an American from Connecticut, who with his sailors had been shipwrecked off the northwest coast of Africa. After almost dying on the coast, they went inland, figuring that, even though they knew they'd be enslaved, their chances for survival with the Muslims of the desert would be better.

They were descended upon by Arab tribesmen who, conveniently being taught that non-Muslims were sent by Allah to be slaves, fought each other over who would keep this bounty. For months the men were starved, kept thirsty, worked to the bone under the hot sun, which burned their fair skin, and made to sleep without bedding on the hard ground.

Some of them became so mad with hunger that one ate his own arm and two others murdered a small Muslim boy and cannibalized him.

Eventually some more civilized Muslim men from elsewhere took pity on them and arranged for their release, based on a horrified Christian official in a city some miles away.

That's pretty much the way non-Muslims are viewed to this day by many Arabs and other Muslim fanatics - potential slaves to be used and worked to death.

Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Joe --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.


Joe said...

The bulk of the commentators here have a single purpose: as if Western people do not already hate Arabs enough, they want people to hate them even more. The one thing that seems to be totally absent is a single infraction of the white man. To read these people, white people have been history's saints. When white people s***, it doesn't even smell. When white people drop terrorist bombs by the millions, invade sovereign countries, cross borders to kidnap, torture, assassinate and imprison, why its not terrorist - its benevolence - to bring freedom democracy & human rights. Riiiight.

Americans - the Western world - taught and mistaught by Zionists through their ownership of ALL - without exception - major Western media - already hate Arabic people guts. Most of the above posters don't think the hatred is enough. That is the purpose of the original post - that is the purpose of the rest of the posters. So if I also went away from this puking at the very thought of an Arab, surely this will make you all feel very good and successful.

Dympha starts off the ignorance, berating black people for giving their children Arabic names calling it a "sick joke." Yes, ALMOST as sick as giving them the names of their PRESENT, AS WELL AS their historical oppressors.

Her ignorance continues in stating that most black people in the US also has white blood. True, but she fails to mention that the majority of that phenomenon was a result of mass rape on a grand scale over a period of not less than 300 years. Race mongers? Dympha would do well to take a look in the mirror.

Zenster said...

Joe: When white people drop terrorist bombs by the millions, invade sovereign countries, cross borders to kidnap, torture, assassinate and imprison, why its not terrorist - its benevolence - to bring freedom democracy & human rights. Riiiight. [emphasis added]

As is so often the case with the usual frothy anti-American types, Joe neglects to remember that:


laine said...

"giving them the names of their PRESENT, AS WELL AS their historical oppressors".

This demonstrates the permanent mindset impermeable to facts that blacks are persecuted by whites in the USA instead of pampered by affirmative action programs and that blacks will never be held responsible for any of their self-inflicted problems.

Some questions for irrational Joe:

How can white oppression be blamed for the black illegitimacy rate of 70% (bringing automatic poverty) and murder rate (mostly of other blacks) that is 7 times that of all other races combined? All social pathologies have increased since the Civil Rights Act in the 60's, fifty years further away from slavery so that threadbare excuse is useless and blacks themselves are doing something wrong.

Even given the bad choices American blacks are making, where are blacks at a minimum of 12% of the population better off anywhere in the world than the United States?

They are literally starving in many nations run by blacks. Zimbabwe was reduced from Africa's breadbasket to starvation by black leadership. Rwandan blacks slaughtered 800,000 of another black tribe. 500,000 blacks in Sudan have been murdered and millions burnt out of their homes by Arab militias.

And you dare come here to defend Arabs and simultaneously claim that contemporary American blacks are oppressed by whites?

Get a sense of proportion, man.