quote:Originally posted by zulu: Mazigh, they all have a common heritage of slavery? Are you ignorant or what?
do you have any other idea ? as far as i know they consider thmeselves as brothers because they have a common heritage of slavery. why is djehuti so afrocentrist although he is asian ?
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: [QUOTE]Originally posted by zulu: [b] Mazigh, they all have a common heritage of slavery? Are you ignorant or what?
do you have any other idea ? as far as i know they consider thmeselves as brothers because they have a common heritage of slavery. why is djehuti so afrocentrist although he is asian ?[/B][/QUOTE]
LMAO.... well from as far as historal recs...somalis have not been a enslave pop...and predom of the horn nations of the exceptions...
mazig..ur not ignorant but just dumb founded ...find ur way back......
im pretty sure if not positive that ur BERBER hybrid a-s-s has a form of admixture via slavery heritage.. so why are u so rejective of the notion of black since u also constitute a of it part ...LMAO
posted
black is an ethic group in america not a skin color. But black can be used diffrent in any country nobody is realy black and nobodys is realy white black ethic people in american come in dark brown to meduim brown to light brown. But have u ever ask ur self why they would consider tiger wood the only black golfer to win masters but bj sing the indian dood is darker then me and tiger put together and he is not black. So race is diffrent every wear just like east africans look light skin blacks to us but not for them me and my mother and my grandmother are diffrent shades but we all look like blacks to us but thats how we define our selves. Dosent mean a nigerean has to look at himself as black he could look at himself as dark brown.
Posts: 188 | From: canton,ma,united states | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
maybe not all the blacks were slaves, but the most of them are suspected to be descendents of slaves. some berbers maybe are mixed with their slaves, but i can't confirm this.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bandon19: but bj sing the indian dood is darker then me and tiger put together and he is not black. So race is diffrent every wear just like...
why is that?
[This message has been edited by vidu (edited 30 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: i think that black is a color, but they have a common heritage of slavey...
What about the white Berber slaves the Egyptian owned or White slaves Berbers especially the Touregs and Arabs owned...are they black because they were slaves?
EL MANSUR "I think these women captives, I think they were very much valued on this side on the North African side and once women were captured, the first thing that would be done is to propose them to the Sultan; what remained would be sold at very high prices, because, as I said they were very much valued."
Well, most people outside of European/American society consider themselves by culture and not by color. Sure there may be certain words for color identification but its not like in America where black/white identifications be come racial dogma.
If you ask most Africans from Africa they will identify with their ethnic groups:ie. Hausa,Yoruba,or etc.. Not really by color.
The main reason why African-Americans call themselves black has more to do with the collective experiance of racism. Although, many African Americans transported to Western/Central Africa would actually be called ''white'' in some instances because of their lighter complexion.
Not to change the topic,but Berbers were not really big slave owners like Arabs and Europeans where. Most Berbers partisipated in the Trans-Saharan slave trade but sold most slaves to Arabs that lived in the cities. At one time Berbers themselves were often found on aution blocks in Arab countries.
The MZab berbers that live in the Algerian Sahara were active slave traders. Mzab probably did mix with their slaves. Tuaregs had slaves but did not really mix with them.
I have not deleated this conversation because so far its civil but once people start arguing I will deleate it. This is really not supposed to be a racial board.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ceelgabo_11: What about the white Berber slaves the Egyptian owned or White slaves Berbers especially the Touregs and Arabs owned...are they black because they were slaves?
EL MANSUR "I think these women captives, I think they were very much valued on this side on the North African side and once women were captured, the first thing that would be done is to propose them to the Sultan; what remained would be sold at very high prices, because, as I said they were very much valued."
the berber slaves in egypt were captured because of the war, and even some berbers ruled egypt. it is true that the arabs captured thouzends of female berber slaves, but very few barbarians (berbers). you know that the queen of the berbers is killed in the war against the arabs, and you know that the leader of the invazion "tarik ibn ziyad" was berber. and the mother of abderrahma addkhl (abderrahman ibn mou'wiya) was berber... Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”
“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.
“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”
During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.
“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”
Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.
“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.
While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”
WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”
“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.
“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”
During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.
“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”
Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.
“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.
While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”
"During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves."
Well, most people outside of European/American society consider themselves by culture and not by color. Sure there may be certain words for color identification but its not like in America where black/white identifications be come racial dogma.
If you ask most Africans from Africa they will identify with their ethnic groups:ie. Hausa,Yoruba,or etc.. Not really by color.
The main reason why African-Americans call themselves black has more to do with the collective experiance of racism. Although, many African Americans transported to Western/Central Africa would actually be called ''white'' in some instances because of their lighter complexion.
Not to change the topic,but Berbers were not really big slave owners like Arabs and Europeans where. Most Berbers partisipated in the Trans-Saharan slave trade but sold most slaves to Arabs that lived in the cities. At one time Berbers themselves were often found on aution blocks in Arab countries.
The MZab berbers that live in the Algerian Sahara were active slave traders. Mzab probably did mix with their slaves. Tuaregs had slaves but did not really mix with them.
I have not deleated this conversation because so far its civil but once people start arguing I will deleate it. This is really not supposed to be a racial board.
i complete agree....socially this topic can be explained simply...as u did already..however there are ppl on AE for some reasons that have an already fixed superior/inferior card that was likewise brought about socially but exploited by opposed "races" believe(d) acceptable at the cost of human rights.... likewise mazi..and others steer towards a recent social and label it with color..lmao
quote:Originally posted by Mazigh: i think that black is a color, but they have a common heritage of slavey...
Wow, that pan-Aryan site has really done an odd number on your mind!!
Since when did all blacks have slave ancestry?!! Most (but not all) African Americans yes, but what about those in Africa?!
quote:do you have any other idea ? as far as i know they consider thmeselves as brothers because they have a common heritage of slavery. why is djehuti so afrocentrist although he is asian ?
Of course YOU don't understand the simple fact that I am not Afrocentric!! Exactly what makes you think I am?!! Is it because I support the fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans?? This is a fact, you know!! One's 'race' has nothing to do with it! In Ausar's website there are even white people that accept this fact!!
But of course I wouldn't expect an Aryanist who believe in white blonde Central Saharans as well as a red-head Egyptian god Amun to understand!!!
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 30 September 2005).]
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mali: i complete agree....socially this topic can be explained simply...as u did already..however there are ppl on AE for some reasons that have an already fixed superior/inferior card that was likewise brought about socially but exploited by opposed "races" believe(d) acceptable at the cost of human rights.... likewise mazi..and others steer towards a recent social and label it with color..lmao
Another thing I don't understand is how white people, especially Aryanists like Mazigh could associate slavery with blacks!!
Slavery was universal! In fact the word 'slave' itself is derived from Slav, because the Slavic peoples were considered inferior by Western Europeans and enslaved by them. The fact that Slavic people were often blonde-haired and blue-eyed and spoke languages that are moreso 'Aryan' then Western Europeans didn't matter, since they were eventually equated with slavery!
Not many people know this, but after the abolition of black slavery in the Americas, Westerners turned to Asia for new sources of slave labor! People from South Asia (India, Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh) to Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, etc) and even people from Taiwan and China were kidnapped and sent to America as slaves.
Since ancient times, people have been enslaving other people and it had absolutely nothing to do with 'race'. Only in modern times was race attached to slavery.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mazigh: [b]i think that black is a color, but they have a common heritage of slavey...
Wow, that pan-Aryan site has really done an odd number on your mind!!
Since when did all blacks have slave ancestry?!! Most African Americans yes (most but not all), but what about those in Africa?!
quote:do you have any other idea ? as far as i know they consider thmeselves as brothers because they have a common heritage of slavery. why is djehuti so afrocentrist although he is asian ?
Of course YOU don't understand the simple fact that I am not Afrocentric!! Exactly what makes you think I am?!! Is it because I support the fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans?? This is a fact, you know!! One's 'race' has nothing to do with it! In Ausar's website there are even white people that accept this fact!!
But of course I wouldn't expect and Aryanists who believe in white blonde Central Saharans as well as a red-head Egyptian god Amun to understand!!!
[/B][/QUOTE]
lmao..dje...
those sites not only try to grab every and all civilizations and merit them as caucaisian(european) ....but they also correlate race=intelligence...LMAO..
the asians..u ..are considered superior to the whites...where inferior to the blacks..lmao..
Such simple minded ppl...or plane retards...
it absolutly has nothing to do with race...however when viewed whites are extremly Defensive since they were nor involved in any PROGRESSIVE CIVILAZTIONS OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY..until now..modern history...which was built on the tenants of the near east and other civils where they directly had no involvtion however mythically had impact the intialtion and progression of it.... its completly confusing..no just plane retard logic...any1 with a coin for a brain won't back wash that crap.. except for a few no need to name..LMAO
quote:Originally posted by vidu: TOPIC: is black a race or a color?
what do yall think? imo its only color! black is only about color! majority of the south asians are also black!
what a ridiculous question. Every body knows it's a .............r.......
sike......
every body knows race is only a social construct.
and if it were to apply to......"color"...... why wouldn any body who wasn't black, 'litterally', use black to describe their personal color; given that most blacks aren't black at all.......but brown
blackness is what ever any one choosing identify with it, an individual believes to own.
identification with it does not guarantee loyalty to ones culture. There are many who based on racist standards imposed on them by, "the dominant element", choose to oppose anything not percieved as being in the best interest of the dominant "element". ...meaning.. many blacks and non blacks alike would have you believe that modern times have ushered in a new era of academic honesty and truth. But, in fact the study of africa and Egypt and the nile valley having become more complex, still lacks freedom from bias (based on how affected psychologically most persons of the dominant culture are by slavery)..... In many of the studys I've read (and understood to the best of my ability)regarding gene flow and morphology and all of these ologys(lol).......from their earlies days sought to prove european superiority.....the inherent bias in a european study seeking to prove something like the genetic similarity between Europeans(or... caucasians -we won't even get into that word) and east Africans might initally seem passive and harmless....... But at its core lies the a passionately held belief that black Africans had never accomplished anything of significance in antiquity; thereby affirming the perception of our (blacks) ranking at the bottom of the hierarchy of the "Races of Men". (DISCLAIMER: race does not exist.......) Our collective disposition, the way we see ourselves, and the way others see us(not that....that matters) and have seen us recently, starkly contrasts the way we once were......
some people are so threatened by the awakening of the blacks to the informaion they need to hold their heads high in the world, that they will lie.....at no benefit to themselves, but to the detriment of all others......
The truth is that our contact with groups from outside africa has "NEVER" benefited Africa or africans. Always people from outside africa benefitted from contact with its people; and always africans (even when it comes to the study of "CONTINENTAL" AFRICA) got nothing in return
they don't care nor should they.
Truth is a continuous examination of the facts...........
[This message has been edited by AFROCENTRIST32 (edited 30 September 2005).]
posted
LMAO Mazigh being an Aryanist, makes perfect sense considering what the guy espouses:
The early peoples of the Central Sahara were blonde-haired, blue-eyed, whites! (even though all the rock paintings depicted black people. At one time Mazigh showed a rock painting of non-realistically painted blank white figure, claiming that to be a realistic depiction of a white person!!)
He then tries to tie Egyptian civilization to white Berbers. Once he showed a modern-day illustration of the Egyptian god Amun wearing a red crown and said that it was red hair!!! LMAO
Yeah, the mentality is so obvious!!
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Only in modern times was race attached to slavery.
so
only in modern times did slavery become a world wide institution which would be the foundation for a world wide system of trade.
only in modern times would the nuber of enslaved be so high that there would be a requirement on the part of the "learned" in european society to create academic arguments for the imposition of slavery and colonization upon Africa and other parts of the world. Archaeology and Anthropology and egyptology were easily adaptable to this paradigm.....
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [b]LMAO Mazigh being an Aryanist, makes perfect sense considering what the guy espouses:
The early peoples of the Central Sahara were blonde-haired, blue-eyed, whites! (even though all the rock paintings depicted black people. At one time Mazigh showed a rock painting of non-realistically painted blank white figure, claiming that to be a realistic depiction of a white person!!)
He then tries to tie Egyptian civilization to white Berbers. Once he showed a modern-day illustration of the Egyptian god Amun wearing a red crown and said that it was red hair!!! LMAO
Yeah, the mentality is so obvious!![/B]
in contrast how big of an impact did the "white" berbers have on AE and its evolution....HMMMM
while neighboring BLack (color) had a direct cause and effect on AE and all its fascite and development......
Mazigh...Tries to distort ENGRAVED .. facts ..TO HIS STRAW non-existing ones..
Amun was a pan ARYANIST LIKE U MAZIGH???
Since he is a GOD...his PROGRESSION up the evolutionary chain was nanos...From BLACK--TO WHITE...hmm interesting...
only in modern times did slavery become a world wide institution which would be the foundation for a world wide system of trade.
only in modern times would the nuber of enslaved be so high that there would be a requirement on the part of the "learned" in european society to create academic arguments for the imposition of slavery and colonization upon Africa and other parts of the world. Archaeology and Anthropology and egyptology were easily adaptable to this paradigm.....
Afro, you seemed to have missed the point that slavery has always been a world-wide affair since ancient times! There were always groups dominating other groups.
That said, the Egyptians as well as other black Africans practiced a humane system of slavery whereas Europeans (like Greeks to Romans) have practiced chattel slavery.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Afro, you seemed to have missed the point that slavery has always been a world-wide affair since ancient times! There were always groups dominating other groups.
That said, the Egyptians as well as other black Africans practiced a humane system of slavery whereas Europeans (like Greeks to Romans) have practiced chattel slavery.
arabs were first to practice chattel slavery in Africa......
....although slavery has been a worldwide practice since antiquity, it had not been the bedrock for a "world wide system of trade". In modern european transatlantic salvery we find the roots of modern economics. We see the first evidence of macroeconomics. The concept of "human" resources is born and in effect the first commodity. This domination of one group seems a bit less humane - and it is obviously born of an ice age mentality. Obviously contradicted by the notion of christianity and puritainism slavery was justified as it applied to Africans because they weren't believed to be completely human.........which ties into the argument about east africans and caucasians.............racism was and is so pervasive throughout academia 1800-2000s that, if the majority of african slaves were east african there would be champions of a west african caucasian genetic link......(purely speculative - but well within the realm of posibility given the european experience)
[This message has been edited by AFROCENTRIST32 (edited 30 September 2005).]
Well, most people outside of European/American society consider themselves by culture and not by color. Sure there may be certain words for color identification but its not like in America where black/white identifications be come racial dogma.
If you ask most Africans from Africa they will identify with their ethnic groups:ie. Hausa,Yoruba,or etc.. Not really by color.
The main reason why African-Americans call themselves black has more to do with the collective experiance of racism. Although, many African Americans transported to Western/Central Africa would actually be called ''white'' in some instances because of their lighter complexion.
Not to change the topic,but Berbers were not really big slave owners like Arabs and Europeans where. Most Berbers partisipated in the Trans-Saharan slave trade but sold most slaves to Arabs that lived in the cities. At one time Berbers themselves were often found on aution blocks in Arab countries.
The MZab berbers that live in the Algerian Sahara were active slave traders. Mzab probably did mix with their slaves. Tuaregs had slaves but did not really mix with them.
I have not deleated this conversation because so far its civil but once people start arguing I will deleate it. This is really not supposed to be a racial board.
Ausar you are still intriguing me, you never do anything about Euro, and I won't let it go my friend until this guy is out, your statement shows some kind of double standard... Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 30 September 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Another thing I don't understand is how white people, especially Aryanists like Mazigh could associate slavery with blacks!!
Slavery was universal! In fact the word 'slave' itself is derived from Slav, because the Slavic peoples were considered inferior by Western Europeans and enslaved by them. The fact that Slavic people were often blonde-haired and blue-eyed and spoke languages that are moreso 'Aryan' then Western Europeans didn't matter, since they were eventually equated with slavery!
Not many people know this, but after the abolition of black slavery in the Americas, Westerners turned to Asia for new sources of slave labor! People from South Asia (India, Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh) to Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, etc) and even people from Taiwan and China were kidnapped and sent to America as slaves.
Since ancient times, people have been enslaving other people and it had absolutely nothing to do with 'race'. Only in modern times was race attached to slavery.
I heard about Eastern Europeans enslaved by the Ottomans, is it what you mean by Western Europeans. Do you have any source about slaves coming from Asia after the abolition of slavery in America?
quote:Ausar you are still intriguing me, you never do anything about Euro, and I want let it go my friend until this guy is out, your statement shows some kind of double standard... Relaxx
Well, I don't have the authority to ban people. I gave you the email to the forum owner,sammy. What can I do?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
djehuti, where said that amon was red haired ? who are those white people who support the blackness of the ancient egyptians ? was i who said that the central sahara was inhabited by various people ?
keep in mind that the slavery is prohibited by the white man ! but yes, the slavery is up to day in use in africa.
djehuti, do you have slaves among your ancestors ? be honest!
When you see many Negro looking natives even in South America amongst the 'Mongoloid' looking, stereotypical Native, you'll really understand that physical morphology are not confined to a specific region.
On the other hand, 'Caucasian' looking North-Africans are nothing but hybrids.
posted
Null hypothesis: Is white a race or a color. What will apply to one will apply to all!
For anyone who is familiar with Islamic history, when the Turks came down from the steppes they took and entered Europe they trained the white slaves as foot soldiers and they remained the backbone of the Turkish army for centuries. Many were known by their identity as Serb, Croatian and other Slavic identity. Many were Greeks.
Greek Muslims were repatriated in a landmark exchange to Turkey while the Turkish Christains were sent to Greece due to the unreliability of ethnicity and religion. IN the end religion won. Out of the rape of Slav/Greeks, Turks like Mehmet the Great began to show more traits of European ethnicity due to the preference for a slave women over a free woman. With slaves of all kinds, one can and has trested them like property. They were differnt, more seductive and one had power to control them.
quote:hey ausar, if you want to ban me, but you can't, you have just to say it, and i will leave this board.
[This message has been edited by Mazigh (edited 01 October 2005).]
mazigh, I was not talking about banning you. In reality I don't have the ability to ban anybody. Relaxx, keeps saying that I do nothing about Evil Euro,and so I told him to email the owner of this forum,sammy. He is the only one that can ban people. I was talking about Evil Euro.
I would not recommend you banned because you have said or done nothing disrespectful.
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 01 October 2005).]
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 01 October 2005).]
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar I agree with you that Mazigh is civil in his conduct.
I have to agree with Relaxx about Leba & Erroneous.
I've seen no indication that Egyptsearch.com moderators actually know how to ban folks, and if they do, those two should have been long gone from these forums.
Since they are still here, either the moderators don't care, or don't know how [to ban folks].
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 October 2005).]
those sites not only try to grab every and all civilizations and merit them as caucaisian(european) ....but they also correlate race=intelligence...LMAO..
the asians..u ..are considered superior to the whites...where inferior to the blacks..lmao..
Such simple minded ppl...or plane retards...
it absolutly has nothing to do with race...however when viewed whites are extremly Defensive since they were nor involved in any PROGRESSIVE CIVILAZTIONS OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY..until now..modern history...which was built on the tenants of the near east and other civils where they directly had no involvtion however mythically had impact the intialtion and progression of it.... its completly confusing..no just plane retard logic...any1 with a coin for a brain won't back wash that crap.. except for a few no need to name..LMAO
You hit the nail on the head! Great post!
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [b]LMAO Mazigh being an Aryanist, makes perfect sense considering what the guy espouses:
He then tries to tie Egyptian civilization to white Berbers. Once he showed a modern-day illustration of the Egyptian god Amun wearing a red crown and said that it was red hair!!! LMAO
Yeah, the mentality is so obvious!![/B]
Its called henna and its/was used throughout african for centuries. Red hair is not exclusively European either and the sun and beach/sea water can turn hair redish-blond.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Definition: "Slavery" is any situation in which the will of one individual is subordinated with natural impunity to the will of another. Here are some examples.
Ancient Greek society was mostly composed of slaves with the free men being a small minority.
The same for the Romans who had large numbers of European slaves taken during the Roman colonisation of Europe. Just check any of the Roman historians like Tacitius or Livy.
In Islamic Spain during the Moorish period most slaves came from Europe with some coming from North Africa. The reason being it was just more convenient to bring in slaves from Europe than elswhere.
Most Turks and Arabs have slave ancestry because during the era of "white slavery"(an actual historical term) white women from Eastern Europe(the Slavic lands--hence the term "slave") were most in demand as harem slaves for the Arab and Turkish satraps. Just as today they were just kidnapped and forced into sex servitude.
Asian slaves of Malay origin were imported into South Africa along with Africans from Angola and other areas near South Africa during the European colonisation of South Africa. Indians from India were also imported as slaves but more as indentured labourers too.
Native Americans in the Americas were enslaved(bought and sold) by the Spaniards for more than 100 years before the Spaniards decided to try West Africans.
Most Europeans were slaves for more than 1000 years under the system of Serfdom. The word "serf" comes from the Latin word "servus" meaning slave. That's why it was such a momentous event in Europe when the slaves(serfs) were freed under the banner of "Freeing the Serfs". Recall that the French Revolution had as its slogan "Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood". This did not deter the ex-slaves from launching a bloody revenge revolution that involved ring-side seats to get a close-up look at the heads of the land-owning aristocrats being chopped off by the thousands by the famous GUILLOTINE.
Note that slavery existed in India and China for centuries. And today there is slavery(debt especially) existing openly in India.
This thread and the essential question of this thread presupposes the existence of such a thing as "Race". This is a false presuppostion, hence the question is nonsensical.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Wow, that pan-Aryan site has really done an odd number on your mind!!
Printer-friendly view of this topic