> So, overall, I don't see what the purpose of your comment is unless it's an attempt as European slave trade apologia.
I am not OP but I take issue with this. I feel like this is the whole thing. Why did you feel the need to write “European”. That’s wrong and denigrates entire ethnic groups in a very ignorant way. The poles for example surely you would agree are european but did not participate in the slave trade. But, this is not my main point.
My main point is, the slave trade was a multicultural, multiethnic affair. In different periods of times, different peoples were enslaved by different other peoples.
Just so you don’t mistake my comment, this is not an apologia of slavery. It was a horrible institution worthy of condemnation and I am happy it was ended.
I just find it very annoying when I see this automatic assumption “europeans were slavers”. No, not all of them practiced slave trading, some of them were enslaved as well, the ones that did practice slavery collaborated with non europeans to create the supply chain and there were other non european peoples also actively engaged in the slave trade.
Slavery is not the sin of Europe, it’s the sin of all man kind.
Are you really going off just on the words "European slave trade?". How did the slaves get to Haiti? Who steered the boat? Who profited from their transportation? It's the European slave trade because it was Europeans who bought slaves in Africa and sold them in America. Yes, Africans participated in the slave trade. Yes, Africans did terrible things. No, not all Europeans participated in the slave trade directly. In fact the vast majority didn't. There were also (and terrifying still are) lots of other forms of slavery. I never said anything different from that, neither does the article. The evils of one group of people doesn't lessen the evils of another group of people. We aren't having an argument about morals here, we're having an argument about discourse. If every time you talked about slavery, you had to include all of the sins of all of the individuals involved in that trade, discourse would become so burdensome as to be impossible. The post I was replying was setting this as a standard that must be met without thought about the implications of such a requirement.
The only possible outcome of advocating such a position is that destruction of our ability to discuss the issue at all. The only type of person that would want that outcome is an apologist who simply wants the topic dropped, even when talked about tangentially, such as occurs in this article.
I don’t know if it’s worth replying because you appear to be an ideologue who doesn’t actually want to discuss the subject, you appear to only want to denigrate europeans.
Eh, I’ll give it a try on the off chance you are actually writing in good faith.
Assuming good faith on your part, I believe we have a different understanding of what the standard of discourse should be. While I understand the concern around scope creep, which is valid, I hope you can also see my concern about context.
When discussing a complex subject like slavery, I think it’s counter productive to focus on a niche. Let me give you an example. Would it make sense to talk about world war two focusing only on France for example? Could a meaningful discussion on world war two happen if the discussion was limited to France?
It feels to me the issue is like this. Continuing the analogy with world war two, I don’t think you need to mention absolutely all countries that participated in world war two in order to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. At the same time, I believe it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion on the subject by talking about literally one country.
You appear to be asking us to talk specifically about one country. This to me seems to be actively harmful. I cannot see what good ( unless you count painting european people in an unduly bad light to be good ) can come from ignoring critical context.
My purpose is not to stifle discussion by burdening it with unnecessary context, my purpose is to elevate the standard of discourse by including critical context.
Show me in my comments where I am an ideologue or encourage a specific ideology. Where do I denigrate Europeans? Give me the specific quote of what I wrote. Don't say " you appear to be," give me the actual text and tell me how that is either being an ideologue or denigrating to Europeans.
Btw, I have nothing against modern day Europeans. All of my ancestors came from Europe. I do think a lot ( not all ) of Europeans in the 18th century behaved immorally when it came to their colonies. If you don't think that, you need to study some actual history. (I also think that a lot of Africans, Asians, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders behaved immorally too, but that doesn't seem to offend you for some reason)
The Nation of Islam published The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews which describes this relationship. Naturally, this work is highly critiqued by Jews as being misinformation. So you will have to be the judge yourself as to whether or not it's actually an honest description of what happened.
Introduction:
An accurate accounting of the history of Blacks and Jews from the Columbian era to the Civil War, including the extensive record of Jewish slave trading in the western hemisphere.
This study is structured as a presentation of historical evidence regarding the relationship of one people with another. The facts, as established by highly respected scholars of the Jewish community, are here exposed and linked by as sparse a narrative as is journalistically permitted for review by those interested in the subject..
The subject at hand is a controversial one and should be approached with great sensitivity. Those who would use this material as a basis for the violation of the human rights of another are abusing the knowledge herein. The wise will benefit to see this as an opportunity to develop a more equitable relationship between the families of man.
If Spartacus wouldn't have been enslaved there is a good chance that he might have ended up with Slaves on his own at one point or another in his life.
I am not OP but I take issue with this. I feel like this is the whole thing. Why did you feel the need to write “European”. That’s wrong and denigrates entire ethnic groups in a very ignorant way. The poles for example surely you would agree are european but did not participate in the slave trade. But, this is not my main point.
My main point is, the slave trade was a multicultural, multiethnic affair. In different periods of times, different peoples were enslaved by different other peoples.
Just so you don’t mistake my comment, this is not an apologia of slavery. It was a horrible institution worthy of condemnation and I am happy it was ended.
I just find it very annoying when I see this automatic assumption “europeans were slavers”. No, not all of them practiced slave trading, some of them were enslaved as well, the ones that did practice slavery collaborated with non europeans to create the supply chain and there were other non european peoples also actively engaged in the slave trade.
Slavery is not the sin of Europe, it’s the sin of all man kind.