Nostr Web Client

Slavery had been prevelant in Africa for centuries before European traders arrived.

The trans-Saharan slave trade, in which Muslins traders sold sub-Saharin Africans into North Africa and the Middle East, was far worse than the trans-Atlantic slave trade that Westerners fixate on.

The truth is, slavery is the rule (even today), while freedom is a fleeting exception.

#Bitcoin lets everybody opt out.

Satchmo 2y ago

Comments pointing this out are kind off imho and completely miss the point.

The Atlantic slave trade in the americas was more about production than the Saharan slave trade. It was about finding the cheapest labor to boost profits from plantation style farming. The Atlantic slave trade was mostly about industrial slavery, an obvious precursor to factory style production.

Plantation style farming of course coming about around the same time that industrial capitalism started coming together in England and they exported some of this to their slave holding colonies and to the America’s.

The two slave trades are different even though they had similarities. They were both horrible, comparing slaveries with the goal of figuring out which was worse is a bit of a logical fallacy and ridiculous.

Similar to how an African slave in the North in the US had a different experience than the ones on a plantation in the US South. It doesn’t mean one experience was worse than the other, they were just different.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Laser 2y ago

The point isn't to find which is worse, but to slay the fallacy that slavery = american slave trade when in fact it is a permanent fixture of human society.

Satchmo 2y ago

The point is that American slavery had some big differences and heavily contributed to the strength of the American empire which ended up kind of running the world post World War Two. Which is why people talk about it so much, I don’t recall the Arab slavers establishing world dominating empire and carrying a lot of those methods and concepts forward, yet.

And saying it’s permanent makes it sound like it had monolithic characteristics and not affected by historical events, but don’t mind me.

Diligent Ninja 2y ago

Imagine trying to make the point that the Saharan slave trade wasn't ALSO about sourcing the cheapest labor

Couldn't be me

Satchmo 2y ago

I honestly think there are many more Bitcoiners that can’t read than we want to admit 😂😂😂. If you didn’t see what I actually wrote, I don’t know how to help you.

Laser 2y ago

Egyptians are slavers.

Africans are slavers.

Nords are slavers.

Jews are slavers.

Anglos are slavers.

On and on it goes.

Seek Christ not victimhood.

Badsamm 2y ago

Native Americans were slaver too

Laser 2y ago

Yes.

Laser 2y ago

nostr:npub160ed0rgndfqggfnn2vmqwjuvxan6h6d6dul2x6arq2f3p0qwnvfqqnc04e

1. Slaves are not free: the require food, water, and shelter.

2. Therefor, every slaver in history took on slaves believing they would get a return on said food, water, and shelter.

3. Slavery that doesn't follow the above criteria, for example in death labor camps, is actually called genocide.

Satchmo 2y ago

I think you need to look at what you wrote here and expand the category of Genocide to American slavery because it fits your stated definition. There were plenty of death labor camps during American slavery and Native American slavery.

Laser 2y ago

Sure, as there were death labor camps in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Genocide is also a permant fixture of human societies.

mleku 2y ago

but but if you point that out their little bailey is not so important and they will attack you for that.

Laser 2y ago

Little bailey?

mleku 2y ago

manipulation technique based on a logical fallacy called "motte and bailey". always constructed in similar ways as "antifascist".

how could you not be against the nazis? then you must be for .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

the bailey is the real position, which is in fact - in the case of antifascism, communism. the thing they hold up in its place to argue about is fighting nazis.

same applies to the antislavery, because what they are really defending is bankster slavery (most of them don't even know it) and they present their pet strawman, slavery of africans by white (ie german and english) people. you can't even break through the fact that they never talk about the pale skinned slaves who were almost as common, the irish.