The "Wow" Thread Got Me Thinking...

[emilynghiem]

Well, it's interesting to think about what "would have been" if mass deaths and migrations hadn't occurred.

It is documented that large numbers of Africans (more than half) died of disease, maltreatment, and malnutrition before they ever were sold into the slave markets. What if they all had survived? What if they all had remained in Africa?

I was in Germany a few months ago talking to a local about the private residential houses, and how well they are constructed. He explained that Germans assume their houses will be taken over by their children (the oldest one, presumably) after they die, for generations. But what if they hadn't lost millions of young men during WWII? Would they have enough housing now?

It is estimated that 90% of the "Indians" in what is now Mexico died of diseases spread by Cortez and his contemporaries within 20 years of his arrival. What if 90% of them had survived? What would Mexico look like now?

And the reason we are having this conversation right now is we are descendents of people not killed off in any of these epidemics or genocides.

I get your point, that there are reasons and consequences, good and bad that result.

I still believe the point is to learn how to manage society and populations civilly where we don't need mass war or killings to keep growth down. Chaos and crisis can be prevented.

So yes, these events are part of our "learning curve" to get to a better place.

When people have equal access to education and social, economic and political development, society stabilizes and no longer has wild fluctuations or imbalance in
birth and death rates, poverty vs. waste, and overpopulation vs. underdevelopment.

The point is to prevent conflicts and imbalances from escalating to disastrous proportions.

(Note: Not all the losses are in the human realm; the loss of indigenous birds and species in Hawaii, or the mass destruction of rainforests over several continents, may not manifest their full impact for centuries to come. The loss of birds in Guam alone is causing forests to die from lack of distribution of seeds by birds, while other populations may take 80-90 years to die out from damage already done now. Is anything gain really worth the permanent risk of losing any species of plant or animal in an ecosystem?)

 

[longly]

King Peggy sounded adamant to me when she said something to the effect of: The lucky ones were those whose ancestors were taken to the US as slaves.


Book Summary
The charming real-life fairy tale of an American secretary who discovers she has been chosen king of an impoverished fishing village on the west coast of Africa. King Peggy has the sweetness and quirkiness of The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series and the hopeful sense of possibility of Half the Sky.

King Peggy chronicles the astonishing journey of an American secretary who suddenly finds herself king to a town of 7,000 souls on Ghana's central coast, half a world away. Upon arriving for her crowning ceremony in beautiful Otuam, she discovers the dire reality: there's no running water, no doctor, and no high school, and many of the village elders are stealing the town's funds. To make matters worse, her uncle (the late king) sits in a morgue awaiting a proper funeral in the royal palace, which is in ruins. The longer she waits to bury him, the more she risks incurring the wrath of her ancestors.

Peggy's first two years as king of Otuam unfold in a way that is stranger than fiction. In the end, a deeply traditional African town has been uplifted by the ambitions of its headstrong, decidedly modern female king. And in changing Otuam, Peggy is herself transformed, from an ordinary secretary to the heart and hope of her community.

 

[DGS49]

I'm sorry, but I can't resist:

"When people have equal access to education and social, economic and political development, society stabilizes and no longer has wild fluctuations or imbalance in birth and death rates, poverty vs. waste, and overpopulation vs. underdevelopment."

Interesting thought, but total baloney. People continue to make disastrous life choices because they are easier than to work hard, defer gratification, and make constructive choices.

Studies of intact families in the the African American community (mother, father children, under one roof), indicate that the economic differences are largely eliminated if the people in those communities make the right choices.

 

[katsteve2012]

Well, it's interesting to think about what "would have been" if mass deaths and migrations hadn't occurred.

It is documented that large numbers of Africans (more than half) died of disease, maltreatment, and malnutrition before they ever were sold into the slave markets. What if they all had survived? What if they all had remained in Africa?

I was in Germany a few months ago talking to a local about the private residential houses, and how well they are constructed. He explained that Germans assume their houses will be taken over by their children (the oldest one, presumably) after they die, for generations. But what if they hadn't lost millions of young men during WWII? Would they have enough housing now?

It is estimated that 90% of the "Indians" in what is now Mexico died of diseases spread by Cortez and his contemporaries within 20 years of his arrival. What if 90% of them had survived? What would Mexico look like now?

For that matter, what would America look like had a smallpox epidemic not been unleashed on them by Europeans? That beng said, it is pure speculation bordering on arrogance to assume that had Africans not been sold or as some think (rescued) into slavery that they would have perished if left alone to their own devices.

Guns Germs & Steel: Variables. Smallpox | PBS

 

[Asclepias]

Ahem...

Yes, my original post was to suggest a comparison of the life-circumstances of African Americans with Africans in the countries from which the slaves were taken. I did not mention the specific countries because (a) it is a bit controversial, and (b) I didn't have time to look it up.

The point being that "Black" leaders in this country, promoting the politics of envy, want poor "African Americans" to compare their circumstances with the perceived idyllic circumstances of upper-middle class "Whites" (mainly as seen on TV and in film), so that they will feel resentful and picked upon. I am suggesing that there is an alternate comparison, even more valid, with the people and cultures that they would be a part of had the slave traders not kidnapped their ancestors and brought them to America.

This is not to minimize or deny the intrinsic evil of slavery - just to say that now that the acute pains of slavery are long gone a more balanced viewpoint can be tried.

It is analogous to a case where an evil scientist develops a cure for a terrible disease by intentionally and secretly infecting a group of people with the disease so that it can be studied. After all those people are long dead and gone, is it possible to be content with the fact that this disease has been eradicated - and it wouldn't have been eradicated without the evil experiments? Slavery was unspeakably evil, especially in a nation that professed to be Christian and "advanced," but let's just say now that the descendants of those slaves are better off than they would have been if slavery had not existed.

This is all hypothetical glorification and speculation, because no one can accurately predict what the outcome of ones future "WOULD HAVE BEEN" living free or enslaved.

Of course another possible scenario could have been if Africa or even America had never been colonized by Europe, civilization of the European continent would've collapsed due to overpopulation and a lack of resources, and the regions of Africa and America would have remained largely dependent on substistence agriculture and hunting.

The US would be just another prison outpost without Black people. It would have never risen to power without Black slave labor. Cotton and sugar made the US a economic and political power. Also for any numbnuts that have never been to Africa wait until you visit one of the countries before you think you know what you are talking about when it comes to standard of living. Dont let empty figures sway you. Its really nice over there.

 

[Andylusion]

I think taxpayers are still owed 24 billion (est?) from Congress costing us from the last shutdown.
Even though our system of civilized democracy replaces militant combat, and our lawsuits
replace dueling swords and pistols to bully it out in court using bigger dollars to hire bigger lawyers,
we still do not resolve grievances and end up paying money we cannot afford while our
schools, hospitals, historic landmarks and economy suffers without funds to invest there.

We spend more public money on health care, than just about anywhere else. There is only about 3 countries on this planet that spend more on health care. And it is specifically those areas that we spend so much, that we have problems.

Similarly, we spend more than most other countries on schools. And it is exactly those government funded schools, that have problems.

Government spending money, doesn't seem to improve much. If anything, it harms stuff. Spending trillions in 2009-2012 didn't fix our economy.

The reason those areas of our country are failing, is specifically because we are demanding government get involved, and it is, and it is screwing up everything, as government always does.

We may mask our political gangs and tribal warfare behind billion-dollar media campaigns,
but we still haven't solve problems even though we have the best access to free speech, press and right to petition.
We still have steps to go to evolve to a mature self-governing society as any other nation or continent is facing.

That's because the best solutions to problems come from society, not government. Free speech, press and right to petition, are all good things to help prevent government from becoming tyrannical. But those things were never supposed to allow us to fix all problems. The solution to "all our problems" is us the people, improving our own lot. Not government beating the crap out of tax payers, to fund bad programs that fix nothing.

Just because wrongdoing was long ago doesn't make the injustice go away.
it is still carried in the conscience and we still owe a debt to the ancestors who suffered until we perfect our system for redressing grievances in full.

Hawaiian native descendants still seek reparations for the genocide they suffered.
This DOES affect future generations who no longer have sovereignty over the land they would have inherited from their ancestors, and have also lost irreplaceable natural resources including endangered or extinct species due to destruction of their native habitat.

I have learned over my years, just from observing those around me, that every single person on this planet has grievances. Everyone does. I have not met a person yet, who look me in the eye and said "no one has ever done me wrong in my life".

Yet I have found that there are generally two results from this. One, is the person who demands reparations of wrongs, and waits around from the other party to come and apologize, or make it right, or payback for some evil deed. These people tend to waste away their entire lives, in bitterness and anger over some never-coming redress.

Then there are the other people, who tend to let it go. Move forward. Get on with their lives, and succeed.

I do not have a problem with people who want to get a check from the government, for something that happened 100 years ago or whatever, but I think we need to focus on moving forward and living life, rather than wasting away in the distant past. What's the point of that?

The Asians have it right. If there is any group that could make the case, it would be the Japanese forced into camps during world war 2, and yet in all my life, I have never once met a Japanese American still bitter over it. I have met blacks complaining about slavery, and American natives bitter about land, and even Mexicans bitter over Texas. But not one time, not once in all my life, met a Japanese bitter over it, and when you look at the statistics, Asians out perform White Male Americans in America. Lower unemployment, higher pay, higher levels of wealth.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Note: I will ask other USMB members to post the links here to the "Reconciliation Villages" in Africa where they have successfully overcome the wounds of genocide to restore the integrity of their communities.

In some ways, they have come farther than people in the US who cannot forgive and overcome crimes and corruption here. So it is relative. You can say the genocide is more physically violent and militant there, than the "invisible" corporate and political genocide and oppression going on in America. But if we take the best solutions coming out of Africa and the U.S. maybe we can help each other and more countries that way. Every group has its strengths and weaknesses. From the viewpoint of other countries, the US may look the most messed up with all the freedoms we have, and yet we can't stop drunk driving, school shootings, or mental health problems with all the medical institutions and resources we have. We might look crazy to people in other countries who manage to do more with less.

Well that's part of the deal. Freedom, by it's very nature, means people may choose to use that freedom to do things we don't like.

The only way to make absolutely sure we don't have any of these issues, is to openly embrace big brother, and institute Orwellian system of mass government control.

The only alternative to Orwellian Big Brother, is to have ridged enforcement of the existing laws. You can either have Big Brother, with cameras everywhere. Or you can have ridged enforcement. Singapore is in the very middle of some of the biggest drug trafficking lanes in the world, and yet if you look at drug crime statistics in Singapore, they have about... last i look 5 a year? 10 a year? How do that do that? They don't have big brother, with cameras in every house.

The way they do that, is by rigidly enforcing the law. They simply put criminals to death. You kill someone? You die. You deal drugs? You die. We used to have that in America, and shockingly crime was a fraction of what it is today. That's because we don't have that anymore. We give criminals, free education and career training, at tax payer expense.... and then you wonder why we can't stop drunk drivers?

With Mandela's trust commissions in South Africa, they have a better working system than we do for ending political violence after it happens.

Well Mandela is the perfect example of what I was talking about. He got out of prison and made no attempt to demand reparations, or anything.

When people boast that America is better than the poor places in Asia and Africa,
I bring up the mental illness and dependence on meds we have that other countries 'are too poor to have'

That's unavoidable too. Again, you can't prevent people from using the freedom our system gives them, to make choices that are not good for them. I think jumping out of an airplane is dumb. But people do it, and some die in the process. But when you have freedom, it means some people are going to choose to go out with an unintentional splat.

 

[Andylusion]

Ahem...

Yes, my original post was to suggest a comparison of the life-circumstances of African Americans with Africans in the countries from which the slaves were taken. I did not mention the specific countries because (a) it is a bit controversial, and (b) I didn't have time to look it up.

The point being that "Black" leaders in this country, promoting the politics of envy, want poor "African Americans" to compare their circumstances with the perceived idyllic circumstances of upper-middle class "Whites" (mainly as seen on TV and in film), so that they will feel resentful and picked upon. I am suggesing that there is an alternate comparison, even more valid, with the people and cultures that they would be a part of had the slave traders not kidnapped their ancestors and brought them to America.

This is not to minimize or deny the intrinsic evil of slavery - just to say that now that the acute pains of slavery are long gone a more balanced viewpoint can be tried.

It is analogous to a case where an evil scientist develops a cure for a terrible disease by intentionally and secretly infecting a group of people with the disease so that it can be studied. After all those people are long dead and gone, is it possible to be content with the fact that this disease has been eradicated - and it wouldn't have been eradicated without the evil experiments? Slavery was unspeakably evil, especially in a nation that professed to be Christian and "advanced," but let's just say now that the descendants of those slaves are better off than they would have been if slavery had not existed.

This is all hypothetical glorification and speculation, because no one can accurately predict what the outcome of ones future "WOULD HAVE BEEN" living free or enslaved.

Of course another possible scenario could have been if Africa or even America had never been colonized by Europe, civilization of the European continent would've collapsed due to overpopulation and a lack of resources, and the regions of Africa and America would have remained largely dependent on substistence agriculture and hunting.

The US would be just another prison outpost without Black people. It would have never risen to power without Black slave labor. Cotton and sugar made the US a economic and political power. Also for any numbnuts that have never been to Africa wait until you visit one of the countries before you think you know what you are talking about when it comes to standard of living. Dont let empty figures sway you. Its really nice over there.

I doubt that. The 1700 south was poor by all measures I've seen. Most of the industry was in the north.

You can't prove the counter factual, by simply pointing to how it actually happened. Yes, they used slaves. That does not mean they would not have found other ways of production, if slavery had never existed.

England never had slave labor, and they were very productive during this time. Clearly they were able to become a leading world power, without domestic slave labor. There is no reason to assume that American could not have.

Yeah, it's so nice over there, that people are leaving the US for Africa all the time.... oh wait they are coming here. Right so... by what measure or information source are you coming up with your bull.... I mean... Opinion on this?

Funny how my friends from Africa never mentioned how great it was there, when they applied for citizenship and said they wanted to stay in the US forever.

 

[Asclepias]

Ahem...

Yes, my original post was to suggest a comparison of the life-circumstances of African Americans with Africans in the countries from which the slaves were taken. I did not mention the specific countries because (a) it is a bit controversial, and (b) I didn't have time to look it up.

The point being that "Black" leaders in this country, promoting the politics of envy, want poor "African Americans" to compare their circumstances with the perceived idyllic circumstances of upper-middle class "Whites" (mainly as seen on TV and in film), so that they will feel resentful and picked upon. I am suggesing that there is an alternate comparison, even more valid, with the people and cultures that they would be a part of had the slave traders not kidnapped their ancestors and brought them to America.

This is not to minimize or deny the intrinsic evil of slavery - just to say that now that the acute pains of slavery are long gone a more balanced viewpoint can be tried.

It is analogous to a case where an evil scientist develops a cure for a terrible disease by intentionally and secretly infecting a group of people with the disease so that it can be studied. After all those people are long dead and gone, is it possible to be content with the fact that this disease has been eradicated - and it wouldn't have been eradicated without the evil experiments? Slavery was unspeakably evil, especially in a nation that professed to be Christian and "advanced," but let's just say now that the descendants of those slaves are better off than they would have been if slavery had not existed.

You said all of that and still sounded like a dumb ass. What makes you think the descendants of slaves are better off than they would have been if slavery did not exist? What a complete dumb fuck of a statement is that? If slavery did not exist the descendants of slaves would not exist.

 

[longly]

Because I lack the time to follow you guys on a regular basis I don’t know you all’s history, I know you better than just about anyone else here, so I don’t know if you are responding to a previous slight, perceived or real, but I do not see anything outrageous with what he said. You are correct in what you are saying here, “If slavery did not exist the descendants of slaves would not exist. True they would not be the same people, they would not be the descendents of slaves and they would not be living in the US . But he is right, the descendents would have a lower standard living in Africa.

I think that it is true that slavery had a negative effect on the development of Africa. But if the Europeans had never gotten onto the slave trade that would not have saved the Africans from the effect of slavery. The Arab slave trade would have been unaffected, it would have continued; the only difference is all of Africa would be Moslem today.

 

[Asclepias]

This is all hypothetical glorification and speculation, because no one can accurately predict what the outcome of ones future "WOULD HAVE BEEN" living free or enslaved.

Of course another possible scenario could have been if Africa or even America had never been colonized by Europe, civilization of the European continent would've collapsed due to overpopulation and a lack of resources, and the regions of Africa and America would have remained largely dependent on substistence agriculture and hunting.

The US would be just another prison outpost without Black people. It would have never risen to power without Black slave labor. Cotton and sugar made the US a economic and political power. Also for any numbnuts that have never been to Africa wait until you visit one of the countries before you think you know what you are talking about when it comes to standard of living. Dont let empty figures sway you. Its really nice over there.

I doubt that. The 1700 south was poor by all measures I've seen. Most of the industry was in the north.

You can't prove the counter factual, by simply pointing to how it actually happened. Yes, they used slaves. That does not mean they would not have found other ways of production, if slavery had never existed.

England never had slave labor, and they were very productive during this time. Clearly they were able to become a leading world power, without domestic slave labor. There is no reason to assume that American could not have.

Yeah, it's so nice over there, that people are leaving the US for Africa all the time.... oh wait they are coming here. Right so... by what measure or information source are you coming up with your bull.... I mean... Opinion on this?

Funny how my friends from Africa never mentioned how great it was there, when they applied for citizenship and said they wanted to stay in the US forever.

You are wrong about a couple of facts. They tried other ways to do it and finally settled on Blacks as the slave labor source because white people and NA died out under the burden of doing the work. Who else was going to be able to take the extreme conditions? England did have slave labor. They had it before it was over here in the Americas. However, the climate allowed for the poor whites to be used for slaves. So there is every reason to assume the US would have been a failed outpost or at least not a world power and likely still a colony of Britain or another Australia.

Your friends from Africa don't equal to actually being in Africa. I've been there a couple of times. It also depends on what country they were from. If it was having a war then you have your answer as to why they never mentioned how great it was.

 

[Asclepias]

Because I lack the time to follow you guys on a regular basis I don’t know you all’s history, I know you better than just about anyone else here, so I don’t know if you are responding to a previous slight, perceived or real, but I do not see anything outrageous with what he said. You are correct in what you are saying here, “If slavery did not exist the descendants of slaves would not exist. True they would not be the same people, they would not be the descendents of slaves and they would not be living in the US . But he is right, the descendents would have a lower standard living in Africa.

I think that it is true that slavery had a negative effect on the development of Africa. But if the Europeans had never gotten onto the slave trade that would not have saved the Africans from the effect of slavery. The Arab slave trade would have been unaffected, it would have continued; the only difference is all of Africa would be Moslem today.

It was more the comment about being grateful about my ancestors being enslaved at the end of the OP. No he is not right. If Africa had been allowed to develop instead of being split amongst European countries without regard to boundaries already naturally in place and long ago settled between the different groups they would have been just fine. Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa (which it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans. To this day there are muslim countries in Africa but they practice an "Africanized" type of Islam. Africa would be light years ahead as a continent without European invasion and current meddling.

 

[longly]

Because I lack the time to follow you guys on a regular basis I don’t know you all’s history, I know you better than just about anyone else here, so I don’t know if you are responding to a previous slight, perceived or real, but I do not see anything outrageous with what he said. You are correct in what you are saying here, “If slavery did not exist the descendants of slaves would not exist. True they would not be the same people, they would not be the descendents of slaves and they would not be living in the US . But he is right, the descendents would have a lower standard living in Africa.

I think that it is true that slavery had a negative effect on the development of Africa. But if the Europeans had never gotten onto the slave trade that would not have saved the Africans from the effect of slavery. The Arab slave trade would have been unaffected, it would have continued; the only difference is all of Africa would be Moslem today.

It was more the comment about being grateful about my ancestors being enslaved at the end of the OP. No he is not right. If Africa had been allowed to develop instead of being split amongst European countries without regard to boundaries already naturally in place and long ago settled between the different groups they would have been just fine. Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa (which it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans. To this day there are muslim countries in Africa but they practice an "Africanized" type of Islam. Africa would be light years ahead as a continent without European invasion and current meddling.

You said:
“Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa ( it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans“.

What do you mean a different form of slavery? The only difference was the Islamic slavery was based on religion instead of race. Islamic slavery could be just as brutal. After all castration was a common practice especially for harem slaves. The only positive aspect I can see is that an Arab man could marry a black female slave without any social reproach.

 

[Asclepias]

Because I lack the time to follow you guys on a regular basis I don’t know you all’s history, I know you better than just about anyone else here, so I don’t know if you are responding to a previous slight, perceived or real, but I do not see anything outrageous with what he said. You are correct in what you are saying here, “If slavery did not exist the descendants of slaves would not exist. True they would not be the same people, they would not be the descendents of slaves and they would not be living in the US . But he is right, the descendents would have a lower standard living in Africa.

I think that it is true that slavery had a negative effect on the development of Africa. But if the Europeans had never gotten onto the slave trade that would not have saved the Africans from the effect of slavery. The Arab slave trade would have been unaffected, it would have continued; the only difference is all of Africa would be Moslem today.

It was more the comment about being grateful about my ancestors being enslaved at the end of the OP. No he is not right. If Africa had been allowed to develop instead of being split amongst European countries without regard to boundaries already naturally in place and long ago settled between the different groups they would have been just fine. Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa (which it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans. To this day there are muslim countries in Africa but they practice an "Africanized" type of Islam. Africa would be light years ahead as a continent without European invasion and current meddling.

You said:
“Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa ( it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans“.

What do you mean a different form of slavery? The only difference was the Islamic slavery was based on religion instead of race. Islamic slavery could be just as brutal. After all castration was a common practice especially for harem slaves. The only positive aspect I can see is that an Arab man could marry a black female slave without any social reproach.

Therein lies your ignorance. Slaves were still regarded as people not livestock like with American slavery. They could obtain their freedom in many cases by converting to Islam as it is against their belief to enslave a fellow muslim.

 

[longly]

It was more the comment about being grateful about my ancestors being enslaved at the end of the OP. No he is not right. If Africa had been allowed to develop instead of being split amongst European countries without regard to boundaries already naturally in place and long ago settled between the different groups they would have been just fine. Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa (which it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans. To this day there are muslim countries in Africa but they practice an "Africanized" type of Islam. Africa would be light years ahead as a continent without European invasion and current meddling.

You said:
“Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa ( it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans“.

What do you mean a different form of slavery? The only difference was the Islamic slavery was based on religion instead of race. Islamic slavery could be just as brutal. After all castration was a common practice especially for harem slaves. The only positive aspect I can see is that an Arab man could marry a black female slave without any social reproach.

Therein lies your ignorance. Slaves were still regarded as people not livestock like with American slavery. They could obtain their freedom in many cases by converting to Islam as it is against their belief to enslave a fellow muslim.

When it comes to Arabic history I might be some what ignorant not nearly as knowledgeable of it as I am of western history. But I believe that southerners in slaves times considered slaves people. I know that Robert E Lee referred to them as people. Also I can’t believe that all an Arab Slave had to do to gain his freedom was to convert to Islam; if that was the case the system would have collapsed, slave were expensive; it definitely would not lasted until the 1930s. By the way the last Islamic slaves were not freed until the 1960s.

 

[Asclepias]

You said:
“Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa ( it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans“.

What do you mean a different form of slavery? The only difference was the Islamic slavery was based on religion instead of race. Islamic slavery could be just as brutal. After all castration was a common practice especially for harem slaves. The only positive aspect I can see is that an Arab man could marry a black female slave without any social reproach.

Therein lies your ignorance. Slaves were still regarded as people not livestock like with American slavery. They could obtain their freedom in many cases by converting to Islam as it is against their belief to enslave a fellow muslim.

When it comes to Arabic history I might be some what ignorant not nearly as knowledgeable of it as I am of western history. But I believe that southerners in slaves times considered slaves people. I know that Robert E Lee referred to them as people. Also I can’t believe that all an Arab Slave had to do to gain his freedom was to convert to Islam; if that was the case the system would have collapsed, slave were expensive; it definitely would not lasted until the 1930s. By the way the last Islamic slaves were not freed until the 1960s.

It appears you think a few random people considering slaves as people qualify as public consensus. If you truly interested in being knowledgeable you should realize that the concept of Africans being subhuman, savages, or animals was used to rationalize slavery so the Christian whites would have no inconvenient conflicts with slavery.

You may not believe it but it is true. It is against Islamic law to enslave a fellow muslim.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because Islamic law forbade Muslims to enslave fellow Muslims, the Sultan's concubines were generally of Christian origin.

I'm pretty sure some people found a way to ignore that but for the most part conversion resulted in freedom.

BTW Islamic slavery still exists. Dont be fooled.

 

[Politico]

I only have one important question. The thread made you think. So you wrote the thread without thinking then read it?

 

[racewright]

Because I lack the time to follow you guys on a regular basis I don’t know you all’s history, I know you better than just about anyone else here, so I don’t know if you are responding to a previous slight, perceived or real, but I do not see anything outrageous with what he said. You are correct in what you are saying here, “If slavery did not exist the descendants of slaves would not exist. True they would not be the same people, they would not be the descendents of slaves and they would not be living in the US . But he is right, the descendents would have a lower standard living in Africa.

I think that it is true that slavery had a negative effect on the development of Africa. But if the Europeans had never gotten onto the slave trade that would not have saved the Africans from the effect of slavery. The Arab slave trade would have been unaffected, it would have continued; the only difference is all of Africa would be Moslem today.

It was more the comment about being grateful about my ancestors being enslaved at the end of the OP. No he is not right. If Africa had been allowed to develop instead of being split amongst European countries without regard to boundaries already naturally in place and long ago settled between the different groups they would have been just fine. Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa (which it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans. To this day there are muslim countries in Africa but they practice an "Africanized" type of Islam. Africa would be light years ahead as a continent without European invasion and current meddling.[/QU

Oh my God I become more racist with every word you speak, just say thank you to the white men that freed your ansestors.

 

[Andylusion]

Because I lack the time to follow you guys on a regular basis I don’t know you all’s history, I know you better than just about anyone else here, so I don’t know if you are responding to a previous slight, perceived or real, but I do not see anything outrageous with what he said. You are correct in what you are saying here, “If slavery did not exist the descendants of slaves would not exist. True they would not be the same people, they would not be the descendents of slaves and they would not be living in the US . But he is right, the descendents would have a lower standard living in Africa.

I think that it is true that slavery had a negative effect on the development of Africa. But if the Europeans had never gotten onto the slave trade that would not have saved the Africans from the effect of slavery. The Arab slave trade would have been unaffected, it would have continued; the only difference is all of Africa would be Moslem today.

It was more the comment about being grateful about my ancestors being enslaved at the end of the OP. No he is not right. If Africa had been allowed to develop instead of being split amongst European countries without regard to boundaries already naturally in place and long ago settled between the different groups they would have been just fine. Even if the islamic slave trade had overtaken all of Africa (which it would not have) it is entirely different from the form of slavery practised by Europeans. To this day there are muslim countries in Africa but they practice an "Africanized" type of Islam. Africa would be light years ahead as a continent without European invasion and current meddling.

That's a ton of assumptions there, especially since the Rwanda genocide had hundreds of years of history behind it, completely unrelated to the European intervention.

Further, in many ways the Islamic slavery was far worse than European slavery, and still is to this day. A lot of people don't grasp that slavery still exists in the world, and is still practiced.

So I highly doubt that Africa would be light years ahead without European being involved.

When you look Angola and Darfur, I'm not seeing that a lack of European influence is particularly resulting in a golden age.

Now I will say that wealthy countries trying to 'help' people in Africa have been fairly unsuccessful, and massively destructive.

Socialism never works. It doesn't work in trying to fix the problems of other countries either. We should let Africa alone. Let them find their own path and solutions. I think socialists pushing 'aid to africa' mean well, but it simply doesn't work.