Black militia man shoots a police officer in the head in Florida

[TomC]

I don't see anything in the TOU stating you can't, so have at it.

I asked you. I wouldn't have done so if you'd said no, or questioned why, regardless of the TOU.


Tom

 

[Gospel]

Oh. Ok, you have my permission.

 

[TomC]

Europeans are the only ones that have done it. End of discussion.

I can understand why you'd prefer to keep the discussion to "White people are bad. End of discussion."

That narrative would totally work for a black person who prefers to believe in the culture of victimhood and entitlement.
Let's not talk about who actually enslaved African people. Let's not talk about who formulated abolitionist law.

White people are uniquely evil, end of discussion.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Let's not talk about who formulated abolitionist law.

White people are uniquely evil, end of discussion.
Tom

This is perhaps the best historical example of the adage “no good deed goes unpunished.”

 

[J842P]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

There absolutely was and indeed, there was at the same time, that is, the Islamic slave trade in Africa. Unless you want to count the Islamic civilizations as "European", but generally that isn't the way things are characterized.

 

[Trausti]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

There absolutely was and indeed, there was at the same time, that is, the Islamic slave trade in Africa. Unless you want to count the Islamic civilizations as "European", but generally that isn't the way things are characterized.

There’s also the Islamic slave trade of Europeans; but you’re not supposed to remember that.

 

[Gospel]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

No other nation has been in a position to be able to do this. Thus this test means nothing.

There absolutely was and indeed, there was at the same time, that is, the Islamic slave trade in Africa. Unless you want to count the Islamic civilizations as "European", but generally that isn't the way things are characterized.

That would be an answer to my challenge. Did the countries involved in the Islamic Slave Trade only enslave African's and not their own people?

 

[Trausti]

There absolutely was and indeed, there was at the same time, that is, the Islamic slave trade in Africa. Unless you want to count the Islamic civilizations as "European", but generally that isn't the way things are characterized.

That would be an answer to my challenge. Did the countries involved in the Islamic Slave Trade only enslave African's and not their own people?

They also enslaved Europeans. But not their own. The US even fought a war over it.

 

[J842P]

Oh BTW. The challenge I presented was to find a nation (you have all of history to look) that had slavery where they did not enslave their own people and only enslaved people with a certain skin complexion like the Europeans did. The Romans are not an example because they did enslave their own people. My point is the European form of slavery is unique, in that it targeted a specific group of people (not because of the country they were from because the slaves were from many African Nations) because of the color of their skin.

The Islamic civilizations didn't enslave Muslims. They happily enslaved non-Muslims. I guess that's better, in your estimation?

Ok, fine, how about the Chinese, who famously banned slavery relatively early in their history (although, it would crop up again sometimes throughout the dynastic cycle). However, the enslavement of Southeast Asians whose land the Han Chinese colonized was allowed.

How about in South India, where there was an entire caste system, which we would definitely recognize as racial, where the lowest castes were slaves. Indeed, many ended up converting to Islam and Christianity to escape this deep-rooted racial hierarchy. A shame, really, because lots of South India was famously tolerant.

 

[J842P]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Yes, very similar types of slavery have been around throughout history. And definitely as deliberate.

 

[J842P]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Loren, stop with this. This just isn't true. Again, you only have to look at the Islamic slave trade.

 

[J842P]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Slavery has generally been of defeated outgroups. The Europeans are the only society that has been in a position to take slaves from areas of other races, the fact that they are the only ones to have done so is meaningless.

Your reasoning ignores the basic fact that the "Europeans" placed themselves to be the only ones to have done so. Ergo, it is not meaningless.

What are you talking about?

 

[Gospel]

Europeans are the only ones that have done it. End of discussion.

I can understand why you'd prefer to keep the discussion to "White people are bad. End of discussion."

That narrative would totally work for a black person who prefers to believe in the culture of victimhood and entitlement.
Let's not talk about who actually enslaved African people. Let's not talk about who formulated abolitionist law.

White people are uniquely evil, end of discussion.
Tom

That's disingenuous. The Civil War consisted of hundreds of thousands of white American's that died to free the slaves. That doesn't sound evil to me. And I already told you the point of view I have in a Private message. I'm not sure why you'd immediately post this trash after agreeing to move the discussion back to the more public section of the forum.

 

[Gospel]

Let's not talk about who formulated abolitionist law.

White people are uniquely evil, end of discussion.
Tom

This is perhaps the best historical example of the adage “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Yeah except that I didn't fucking say that.

 

[J842P]

What is that quality they lack? If they happen to have not lacked this quality would they have not been enslaved? When the Europeans enslaved Africans is there a quality an African would have had that would have caused the Europeans to not enslave said African? And I'm not talking about missing Arms/legs (but if you want to be the typical semantic prick I'll accept that answer then ignore you).

The "quality" is being an Emerati Muslim. That is the entirety of it. It is racial, but of the "you are not *" rather than of the "you are *" variety. Most of the enslaved are, ironically, African afaik.

The quality that would have spared Africans? Being a white European probably would have done it.

Most of the enslaved being African does not mean all of the enslaved are African. Who are the rest of the slaves if not all Africans? to my knowledge a lot of Dubai's slaves are also from India & Asia. Did the Europeans Enslave people from India &/or Asia (that did not happen to have brown enough skin to be mistaken for African?).

Actually, the Europeans did enslave some Asians. Particularly, the Portuguese. Not to mention the indigenous people of the Americas, which were also definitely enslaved.

The extensive use of African slavery was due to their use in sugar plantations. As I'm sure you are probably aware.

 

[Gospel]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Yes, very similar types of slavery have been around throughout history. And definitely as deliberate.

Similar in what way? I said European slavery was uniquely evil because no other nation has done it the way they did. Which was to enslave people based on the color of their skin. People on this thread seem to be taking this statement as me claiming it was the worst of all slavery. Get over yourselves man. Is what I said true or not? You yourself gave some examples but I call bullshit on those. for example enslaving people because they are not Musilum is not the same as enslaving people over the stimulation of photoreceptor cells by electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Gospel]

Most of the enslaved being African does not mean all of the enslaved are African. Who are the rest of the slaves if not all Africans? to my knowledge a lot of Dubai's slaves are also from India & Asia. Did the Europeans Enslave people from India &/or Asia (that did not happen to have brown enough skin to be mistaken for African?).

Actually, the Europeans did enslave some Asians. Particularly, the Portuguese. Not to mention the indigenous people of the Americas, which were also definitely enslaved.

The extensive use of African slavery was due to their use in sugar plantations. As I'm sure you are probably aware.

Ok if that's the case then the European type of slavery was not unique. Was that so hard?

 

[J842P]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Yes, very similar types of slavery have been around throughout history. And definitely as deliberate.

Similar in what way? I said European slavery was uniquely evil because no other nation has done it the way they did. Which was to enslave people based on the color of their skin. People on this thread seem to be taking this statement as me claiming it was the worst of all slavery. Get over yourselves man. Is what I said true or not? You yourself gave some examples but I call bullshit on those. for example enslaving people because they are not Musilum is not the same as enslaving people over the stimulation of photoreceptor cells by electromagnetic radiation.

Jesus, fine, how about the Dalit castes in South India?

So what you are saying, basically, is that European slavery was unique because they enslaved black Africans? Because even in that sense, it wasn't unique. Black Africans were enslaved by a lot of people.

Or if you mean societies that only enslaved certain racial groups, again, I point you to the example of Southern India, Kerala of all places! Famous for it's tolerance:

Here, read this: https://countercurrents.org/2018/06...-i-spit-upon-the-glorified-history-of-kerala/

Or the history of slaves in China imported from Southeast Asia.

 

[Jarhyn]

The point I'm driving home here is for all the folks who like to say things like, America's involvement in slavery is nothing to wink at because slavery has been around for ages. Not their type of slavery. There was something way more evil and deliberate about theirs.

Yes, very similar types of slavery have been around throughout history. And definitely as deliberate.

Similar in what way? I said European slavery was uniquely evil because no other nation has done it the way they did. Which was to enslave people based on the color of their skin. People on this thread seem to be taking this statement as me claiming it was the worst of all slavery. Get over yourselves man. Is what I said true or not? You yourself gave some examples but I call bullshit on those. for example enslaving people because they are not Musilum is not the same as enslaving people over the stimulation of photoreceptor cells by electromagnetic radiation.

I would caution you on that. Is there any moral distinction between enslaving a person because your photoreceptors weren't tickled by the right photons, and enslaving a person because your audio receptors were not tickled by the right twitches? I don't think it is a distinction I would make. It rubs up against No-True-Scotsman.

 

[Gospel]

Similar in what way? I said European slavery was uniquely evil because no other nation has done it the way they did. Which was to enslave people based on the color of their skin. People on this thread seem to be taking this statement as me claiming it was the worst of all slavery. Get over yourselves man. Is what I said true or not? You yourself gave some examples but I call bullshit on those. for example enslaving people because they are not Musilum is not the same as enslaving people over the stimulation of photoreceptor cells by electromagnetic radiation.

I would caution you on that. Is there any moral distinction between enslaving a person because your photoreceptors weren't tickled by the right photons, and enslaving a person because your audio receptors were not tickled by the right twitches? I don't think it is a distinction I would make. It rubs up against No-True-Scotsman.

People can choose to be non-muslim but they can't choose the color of their skin. If that's an appeal to purity then I'm guilty as charged.