quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Yonis, define "west" Africa.
Define "central" Africa.
If you cannot do so then your statements about the majority of slaves being "west/central" African are dismissed as wishful opinions. Since you cannot even define the area that you are trying to fabricate make believe stories about.
Ofcourse i can define west and central africa,
Here you go.
Man this has already been explained to Argyle' punk arse, All he does is repeat stuff from other posters. "DEFINE WEST AFRICA" STFU, Next thing you know he will use West Africa and say all of Africa was enslaved during the Altantic trade along with Turks, Asians, and Berbers. STFU...This fool is always on some ones nuts with that gay ish.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Folks the fool posted a doctored map that looks like a kindergardner drew it. LOOOOOL!
It's clearly an attempt to make certain countries more eastern than they actually are. Notice how the areas where Morocco and Mauritania are supposed to be contained are erroneously sloped eastward.
posted
Yonis despite the intentional treachery you tried to pull with your map. I will humor you regardless.
Lets say your map is true. How is it the areas where Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and Mali lay are not in so called "west" Africa?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also Yonis you have yet to explain why and I quote:
"East indian slaves were insignificant compared to west/central african slaves".
Also if so called east indian/south Asians were brought over as slaves. How in the world can your map show only Africans from below the sahara as slaves.
Logically Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and Mali are alot closer to the United States and the Caribbean than Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
On what basis did you leave out Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and Mali as not having people from those areas as slaves in the so called "new world".
Yonis do you even attempt to logically think things through before you post or do you let the khat do your thinking for you? : )
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Spanish enslaved their Turkish, Portuguese, Arab and Moorish captives, to use them as galley slaves. These prisoners also did slave labor at Cartagena in the West Indies.
quote: "Turnbull and his group, made up of adventurers, indentured servants and slaves from Spain, Italy and Greece, landed in what is now New Smyrna Beach in 1768."
Why does the above make you angry?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Next thing you know he will use West Africa and say all of Africa was enslaved during the Altantic trade along with Turks, Asians, and Berbers.
It was a slave trade. "West Africa" was not enslaved except for a trade that was to the disadvantage of the Africans. In order to attain the numbers needed Africans on the coast would tap into trade networks that spanned all over the continent and slaves would be sold from market to market before reaching the cost
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the biggest problems is the power of the different people involved is not taken into full consideration. Everything considered it doesn't seem as likely that "Arabs" had such an overwhelming advantage concerning the "Arab" slave trade that we were talking about earlier.
This book talks a bit about long distances, Africans purchasing at markets and trading until reaching the coast. It also talks about the power of African societies
"Africa and Africans in the making of the Atlantic world, 1400-1800" By John Kelly Thornton
quote: Some writers have depicted the slave trails reaching right across the continent, plunging their merciless thrust into the most remote corners of the far interior. This certainly happened during the brief and bloody Arab slave trade from Zanzibar in the nineteenth century. Even in earlier times it was now and then the case, captives from inland countries being handled from one set of traders to the next until they were finally delivered to Europeans at the coast. ‘They sold us for money’, recalls the narrative of a West African ex-slave who wrote his memoirs in 1831, ‘and I myself was sold six times over, sometimes for money, sometimes for a gun, sometimes for cloth… It was about half a year from the time I was taken before I saw white people.’
Another memoir tells how a French slaving captain purchased at Cabinda, near the mouth of the Congo river, ‘an African woman who seemed to him pretty familiar with Whites, or at least showed no surprise or fear at sight of them. Struck by this unusual confidence, the slaver asked her the cause of it. She replied that she had already seen White men in another land where the sun rose out of the water instead of hiding itself in the sea, as it does in the Congo. Pointing to the east, she added the words monizi monamu – many moons – on the way.’ This story, adds the writer, appears to confirm what the seventeenth-century Dutch geographer, Olfert Dapper, had said about the slaves of Mozambique being sold in the Congo.
There is nothing improbable about Africans having repeatedly and even regularly traversed the continent from one ocean to the other. From experience at the end of the seventeenth century, the trader James Barbot had already observed that peoples in Angola extended their trade as far eastward as the frontiers of the kingdoms of Mombasa, Kilwa and Sofala, all of which are on the east African coast. Slaves were brought to the Angolan coast, he noted, from ‘150 or 200 leagues up the country’.
‘All that vast number of slaves which the Calabar blacks sell to all European nations’, James uncle, John Barbot, was writing a little earlier of the Niger delta trade, ‘are not their prisoners of war, the greatest part being bought by those people of their inland neighbors, and they also buy them of other nations yet more remote from there.’
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: Next thing you know he will use West Africa and say all of Africa was enslaved during the Altantic trade along with Turks, Asians, and Berbers.
It was a slave trade. "West Africa" was not enslaved except for a trade that was to the disadvantage of the Africans. In order to attain the numbers needed Africans on the coast would tap into trade networks that spanned all over the continent and slaves would be sold from market to market before reaching the cost
You are very insidious and have a penchant for lying as well as cherry picking from sources. Assuming that Africa is one big continental slave market, as you want us to believe, what good would a slave be [physically] if he/she were taken from say Kenya, sold from master to master along the continent until reaching the west African coast? How long would that take [even by vehicle it would still be tiring] and wouldn't that be expensive venture?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The natives are cheated, in the number, weight, measure, or quality of what they purchase, in every possible way : and, by habit and emulation, a marvellous dexterity is acquired in these practices. And thus the natives in their turn, in proportion to their commerce with the Europeans, and (I am sorry to add) particularly with the English, become jealous, insidious, and revengeful.
For, with a few exceptions, the English and the Africans, reciprocally, consider each other as consummate villains, who are always watching opportunities to do mischief. In short, we have, I fear too deservedly, a very unfavourable character upon the coast. When I have charged a black with unfairness and dishonesty, he has answered, if able to clear himself, with an air of disdain, "What! do you think I am a white man I"
But slaves are the staple article of the traffic; and though a considerable number may have been born near the sea, I believe the bulk of them are brought from far. I have reason to think that some travel more than a thousand miles, before they reach the sea coast. Whether there may be convicts amongst these likewise, or what proportion they may bear to those who are taken prisoners in war, it is impossible to know.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: what good would a slave be [physically] if he/she were taken from say Kenya, sold from master to master along the continent until reaching the west African coast? How long would that take [even by vehicle it would still be tiring] and wouldn't that be expensive venture?
There is evidence that slaves came from longer and longer distances correlating with increasing prices. In other words when prices go up the more slaves from far off places come to the coast. It has been shown earlier that a great deal died before they even reached the coast. Of course it was expensive
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Assuming that Africa is one big continental slave market, as you want us to believe,
My argument is, and has been, that the booming of the slave trade happened in the mid-seventeenth century and continued to increase.
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care what Newton "believes". Please explain to me how useful would a slave be to work on plantations in the west [which itself was a long journey] if taken from east or even central Africa? You want to portray Africans as crazies eager to sell their people to whites.
You lying son of a bitch. Jews dominate the trade, Ibn Khaldun was a f!cking anti-black racist and the slave trade made Britain great.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes you think Ibn Khaldun was a racist? Why would he be a racist?
As I said a large number of slaves died before they reached the coast. The British could have gotten cheaper slaves
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read his f!cking writings. Just like major Jewish figure Maimonides, he was a racist. And if a large number of slaves died before they reached the coast why the f!ck would traders want a "bulk of them" from far?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the conquest of the West (by the Arabs) was completed, and merchants began to penetrate into the interior, they saw no nation of the Blacks so mighty as Ghanah, the dominions of which extended westward as far as the Ocean. The King's court was kept in the city of Ghanah, which, according to the author of the Book of Roger (El Idrisi), and the author of the Book of Roads and Realms (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world.
See page 6 here "Not quite Venus from the Waves: The Almoravid conquest of Ghana". Talking about Ahmad Baba
This shows he (Ibn Khaldun) has been mistranslated
quote: His emphatic rejection of any form of the "conquest hypothesis" carries parciular weight since he was writing relatively early, more or less on the spot geographically, and - a little curiously, we confess - he cited precisely the Almoravid/Ghana confrontation passage from Ibn Khaldun to prove his own anti-conquest opinion. More than two centuries later, as we shall soon see, this notorious passage would lead European scholars to draw a quite opposite conclusion concerning the same manner
posted
Explain to me why Ibn Khaldun would be a racist. For what reason would he be a racist because you can call him a racist but don't even bother to explain why
What the hell man Dana has been here talking about black Moors and everything
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: And if a large number of slaves died before they reached the coast why the f!ck would traders want a "bulk of them" from far?
Why didn't the Europeans simply go for cheaper slaves?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ First you have to identity these "cheaper" slaves. From where Ireland?
I read Khaldun's statements in Image of the Black in Western Art as well as Golden age of the Moor. It has been explained away by some as simply "environmental determinism" and not racism; but this is a weak apologia as Maimonides, Hegel and many Europeans had this view, that does not mean they were not racist for seeing certain blacks as of animal stage.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have not addressed anything that I have said about Ibn Khaldun. Show me racism from Ibn Khaldun in this book. For anyone reading this don't buy into this stuff where people say some random guy was racist for no reason.
The Negroland of the Arabs examined and explained" 1841
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: ^ First you have to identity these "cheaper" slaves. From where Ireland?
From anywhere
“Africans and the industrial revolution in England” By J. E. Inikori
(He goes more into how British textile industries developed and had competition with Indian textiles on the African market. In this way the quality of British textiles improved and also shows the costs involved)
quote:From the early years of English trade to Western Africa, when the Royal African Company had a monopoly of it under a royal charter, East India cotton goods formed a large proportion of the exports, as was shown earlier. As the limited size of the domestic market forced some of the English cotton producers to move into the markets of Western Africa, they came face to face with the Indian cottons.
(Here he goes more into how brass and copper industries developed buy selling to the African market)
quote:the petitioner and his partner have laid out a capital of Ł70,000, and upwards, to establish themselves in the aforesaid manufactories, which are entirely for the African market, and not saleable for any other; and that the petitiioner has lately been informed, that a Bill is now depending in the House, for the purpose of regulating, for a limited time, the shipping and carrying slaves, in British vessels, from the coast of Africa, which the petitioner is informed, and believes, will greatly hurt, if not entirely ruin, the British trade to Africa in the Manufacturers aforesaid, whereby the petitioner and his partners would lose the greatest part of the aforesaid capital
quote:Thus French scholars have suggested the important role played by Africa as a market for European manufactures, especially of the more basic sort. It has been suggested that the French armaments industry was completely dependent on the African trade (which was paid for by slave exports) during times of European peace. Several other industries on the continent and in England can also be shown to have been highly dependent on the African market. Since much of early industrial activity involved production of cruder and popularly consumed products, it can be argued that the African market played a vital part in sustaining the growth of some of Europe's newest infant industries. Thus, while the more extreme position that Williams suggested has not been supported, scholars have suggested important linkages between European industrial production and the African market...
.....The goods exported to Africa to pay for the slaves were costly manufactured products, or high-priced imports from other countries or even other continents, and were the single most expensive factor in the outfitting of the voyage, being more valuable than the ship, the wages for the crew, and food supplies combined. An officer in the Royal Navy presented a typical cost estimate to Parliament in the late 1780s, which noted that the cargo taken on board a typical slaver leaving Liverpool was close to double the combined costs of the ship, its insurance, and the wages of the crew for twenty months. Even when all the final commissions to the captain, the officers, and agents from the final slave sales, the interest on the loans, and the port fees were included, the costs of the outbound cargo used to purchase the slaves still represented the single largest expense incurred by the owners and over half of total costs for the entire enterprise. Two-thirds of the outfitting costs of the French slavers in the eighteenth century were also made up of the goods used to purchase slaves
posted
Oh Jesus, lets not go over this sh!t again! You have yet to show where Britain could get "cheaper" slaves. Britain became wealthy and powerful because of the slave trade and imperialism, get over it.
And the books I cited are there for all to read. Your attempt at Khaldun's defense is useless. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Also Yonis you have yet to explain why and I quote:
"East indian slaves were insignificant compared to west/central african slaves".
Also if so called east indian/south Asians were brought over as slaves. How in the world can your map show only Africans from below the sahara as slaves.
Logically Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and Mali are alot closer to the United States and the Caribbean than Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
On what basis did you leave out Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and Mali as not having people from those areas as slaves in the so called "new world".
Yonis do you even attempt to logically think things through before you post or do you let the khat do your thinking for you? : )
You dumbass. It wasn't about the location that was closest to United states, Mozambique is at the other side of the continent but it didn't stop the portuguese to get people from there. Learn the concept of demand and supply before attempting to act all philosophical on such a simple matter you retard. Also Most of the people taken didn't even end up in United states, but places like Brazil and the Carribean islands. Europeans fiercely competed on these islands, north america got settled late, by the north european late commers in comparison to the carribean and south america which the french, spanish and portuguese were fighting over. North europeans just copied an existing concept from southern europeans when they explored land further north of Mexico.
Also learn to use the image and quote functions you've been here long enough, but i can see why you can't manage them going by your nonsense posts.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
And the books I cited are there for all to read. Your attempt at Khaldun's defense is useless.
For one thing you must show how "north Africans" had an advantage and possessed the capacity to be racist. One must be in a superior possession in order to form such a supremacy (racism). Racism is about power relations. You must also show quotes from books from the 19th century showing Ibn Khaldun as being a racist. If you cannot show any 19th century translations showing Ibn Khaldun as a racist then he was not a racist
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bitch I'm not going to play your silly games. Your Wikipedia-sourced Cooley apologia is no defense. "Mistranslations" my arse. The books I cited showing his anti-black prejudice are there for all to read, one is on Google books I think.
Who said this?
"There have been historians that write very positive things about African societies but still believe that “Negroes” are mentally inferior."
Oh yeh, and you have yet to show where Britain could have gotten "cheaper" slaves.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is your not looking at the big picture. How does Ibn Khaldun being a racist fit with everything else we know about him? Simply put Ibn Khaldun being a racist doesn't make any sense
This is the problem because people don't take everything into consideration.
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In "Golden age of the Moor" Ivan Van Sertima dooesn't offer any sort of context for the supposed racist quote from Ibn Khaldun.
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: I read Khaldun's statements in Image of the Black in Western Art as well as Golden age of the Moor. It has been explained away by some as simply "environmental determinism" and not racism; but this is a weak apologia as Maimonides, Hegel and many Europeans had this view, that does not mean they were not racist for seeing certain blacks as of animal stage.
The issue here is about the power and influence of these societies
Did the Sahara create a racial barrier so people in the north were racist against those of the south?
How do the people of the north, the allegedly racist people, have a significant advantage so that they could feel they had a supremacy over the people of the south equivalent to 19th century Europeans?
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The information in these two threads shows some picture of these relations. The book "QURAN A Reformist Translation" talks allot about Arabic translations and how the meanings of words have been changed. Many other words have been changed over time and so could lead to confusion
The information here also shows how these relations were very different compared to relations with Europeans in the 18th/19th centuries
posted
Your attempt to explain away his racist quotes is as pathetic as Jews and their apologists trying to explain away the anti-black racism in the Babylonian Talmud.
quote:If this translation doesn't show racism from Ibn Khaldun then he wasn't a racist
Also how could he be racist if these societies were not so far apart in development? You are the one that has done no explaining
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Respecting the Masufah, who were generally called el Takshif, that is, the scouts or couriers, and who appear to have occupied the whole road from TeghSza to Tomboktu, there is a passage in Ibn Khaldun (fol. 89) which, with a little abridgment, is worth transcribing.—"After the fall of the Morabite dynasty, the tribes of the Molaththemun returned to the desert, and now occupy the countries which they originally possessed in the vicinity of Negroland. But as we have already observed, the emigration of the Zenagah tribes was but partial: a few only of the Masfifah and Lumtunah obeyed the impulse, while the majority of the tribes remained behind, and keep in our days their old settlements in the Sahra, paying tribute to the Kings of Negroland, on whom they depend, and in whose armies they serve. The Goddalah are directly opposite to the DhawiHassan, a branch of the Moakel Arabs, settled in Siis el Aksa ; the Lumtunah are opposite to the Dhawi-Mansiir and Dhawi 'Obeidu-llah, branches of the same great tribe living in Maghrebu-l-Aksa. The Masufoh face the Zaghabah, an Arab tribe in Maghrebu-l-Ausat ; and the Lamtah adjoin the Benu Riyyah, who occupy Ez-Zab."—Thus it appears that the Masufah inhabiting the tract of desert between Sijilmesah and Tomboktu were in their old settlements, and, therefore, in the tract between Sijilmesah and Ghanah. (See page 17.) Leo (pt. I. c. 17-19) points out the situation of the various families of the Machil (Moakel) tribe of Arabs.
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Also how could he be racist if these societies were not so far apart in development? You are the one that has done no explaining
^ so the Jews who wrote the racist passages in the Babylonian Talmud were more developed than blacks? Or are you going to argue that they weren't racist too?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't know what to make of that. I know there are also positive views of "blackness" maybe the people that wrote the Ham story were jealous
"Catholic Europe biggest Afronuts for Black Jesus and Mary" by alTakruri
posted
Your strawman of "demand and supply" is an evasion tactic which you hope will nullify historical facts that have been provided.
It won't work. First because you can't explain, yet alone back up your statement. And secondly, you cannot beat history, you just can't.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quote from the link below proves what I've been saying all along. That mullato was simply anyone who didn't look like whatever a particular individual believed a negro should look like. In most cases a mullato was not someone that was "half-black" and "half-white".
A mullato was simply anyone no matter the skin color who didn't look "negro" which varied depending on the beliefs of the particular observer.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mullato was a ruse to legally enslave so called "non-Negroes" ie. Europeans, South Asians, Turks, Iranians, Arabs, Levantines, etc.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The actual number of white mulatto slaves is unknowable because all shades from "one drop" to those showing some discernible degree of black admixture were classed together as mulattoes without any distinction as to color.
quote: "Turnbull and his group, made up of adventurers, indentured servants and slaves from Spain, Italy and Greece, landed in what is now New Smyrna Beach in 1768." Why does the above make you angry?
its too simple, argyle, y he's angry. + =
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That map retardedly posted by Yonis only shows places where there were traders or slaves directly in contact with Euros, including the Kongo Kingdom in Central Africa (I believe with them were the Portuguese whom they let in to their Kingdom).
We know where the Euros bought both servants and abducted folk, and abducted slaves from.
The map says nothing about the numbers of slaves from one place or the other nor from whence they came.
Wasn't Southeastern Africa the second largest source of slaves?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
+ 
= 
Printer-friendly view of this topic