- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 52,707
- Reaction score
- 24,734
So why do people have a problem when Blacks say Ancient Egypt was an African civilization or Carthage was African. The whole point with people (rightwingers) saying " Africans enslaved Africans" is to attack Blacks or anyone who brings up Slavery. It is no different to when Guilani brings up Black on Black crime as a means to defend police brutality or when rightwingers say Natives killed Natives as a means to defend White colonialism.1. People like to say African's enslaved their own people because they did.
2. White people all across the world, regardless of their countries involvement in slavery, are held morally culpable for slavery that predominantly happened in the southern United States 150+ years ago. Why would you expect a counter consideration to have a narrower scope than the point in which it addresses?
So then if these racist Whites are not going to admit that Africa has a diversity of races and ethnic groups , including sub-Saharan Africa , then they shouldn't have a problem with Black Americans claiming Ancient Egypt, Carthage, Nefertiti , Cleopatra , Ibn Batuta - after all they are all just Africans!
I DIDN'T say they were. So you are saying that just because Egypt is in Africa does not make it Black, yet above you just said Africans did enslave Africans, so why the racial double standard here. If you are going to notice racial diversity in Africa when it pertains to Egypt then how come you aren't noticing the racial and ethnic diversity in Africa when it pertains to slavery.Ancient Egyptians weren't black.
The people who say it the way they say it , do it to neutralize and defend Whites enslaving Blacks by telling Blacks they too are to blame since their own people sold them.It it used to neutralize certain false narratives associated with slavery e.g.
1. That slavery is a predominantly white phenomenon
2. That white people are in some way morally inferior to other groups
You care enough to say Ancient Egypt wasn't Black. So to you the racial origins and diversity of Africans only matters when you perceive it as benefiting Blacks but if Blacks are the loosers in a narrative then the racial and ethnic diversity and origins of Africans does not matter.Who cares who the biggest slavers were in Africa were? That is not a necessary condition associated with the idea that African's had slaves too.
It matters a whole lot that Caucasoids were the biggest slavers since the people who often say stuff like " Africans enslaved Africans " are implying Blacks enslaved Blacks.
Ofcourse Blacks enslaved Blacks but there are many ethnic and linguistic groups among Blacks. Nobody ever lumps Germans and Jews into 1 group even though both are Caucasoid. Even though both Jews and Arabs are Semitic speakers, they don't get lumped together. Koreans, Chinese, Mongolians, Filipinos, Malaysians, Native Americans, Innuit do not get lumped into 1 group do they. So why lump all sub-Saharan Africans into 1 group. There is more genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa than any other region of the world.
Ofcourse our media, politicians and academia should talk about the origin of African enslavers, especially the Arabs and Berber Muslims but since Arabs and Berbers are not European and Muslim they are protected from negative historical attention. Our liberal establishment is loathe to talk about all the shit non-Europeans did and the enslavement of 1 million Europeans by Muslim Turks. My contentious response to those who say "Africans enslaved Africans" in response to a discussion of the Trans Atlantic slave trade is because the intention behind this response is pro-White racist.
Last edited: