Politics "WOKE" America

european females in general or just certain females with certain featuers from certain european populations? part of europe was ottoman and it took part in that slave trade too. perhaps even some of the non-ottoman parts. imo if there is no need to talk of "europeans" in general terms it should be avoided. that's one of the problems of woke americans. they don't get that there is no single entity called europe in history that attacked all the other people or was attacked by other people. it was constant war and enslavement inside europe itself.



the US people was made out of the british colonists themselves. they also created most of the country on their own. that is not the case in africa or near east/asia where the colonists and the people were not the same. a lot of the countries in these regions were also created by those foreign powers and not by the people who lived there themselves.
and perhaps it should be mentioned that certain western countries continued to meddle in the affairs of former colonies even to this day.

What exactly is your agenda here? Migrants to the Americas have shifted in terms of genetic make-up and origins.
 
You may not know who Europeans are, but the people of other countries know who they are.

i doubt that the Ottomans of that time would write the "european" slaves were most expensive or list slaves from that quite vast regions simply as "european". this sounds incredibly american. if such document existed in which the prizes of slaves from different ethnicities were listed it would differentiate. Circassians for example are named specifically eventhough they could be considered europeans too.

the story about Aimee du Buc de Rivery it's just a legend like you say. i'm not going to argue that darker or blonder hair or skin complexion always determined slave prizes in the ottoman empire but as i wrote above, i don't think the generalization "european" makes much sense here. probably those "european" slaves were on average more expensive than for example Circassians, who can be quite fair featured, because they were mostly from even lighter featured east slavic populations. it's just a theory of course, but somehow these differences must have come about.

do you still remember where you read this?
 
Last edited:
i doubt that the Ottomans of that time would write the "european" slaves were most expensive. this sounds incredibly american. if such document existed in which the prizes of slaves from different ethnicities were listed it would differentiate. Circassians for example are named specifically eventhough they could be considered europeans too.

the story about Aimee du Buc de Rivery it's just a legend.

Europe and Asia are one continent. You seem obsessed.
 
What exactly is your agenda here? Migrants to the Americas have shifted in terms of genetic make-up and origins.

what exactly is your point here? the initial population of the initial U.S.A was mostly made out of british settlers/colonists. or do you agree with Angela that the U.S colonial history is comparable to the one of India or Pakistan?
 
what exactly is your point here? the initial population of the initial U.S.A was mostly made out of british settlers/colonists. or do you agree with Angela that the U.S colonial history is comparable to the one of India or Pakistan?

The latter. It doesn't require a geneticist that the Americas are made up of various and very different immigration shifts.
 
WOKE Ideology took over Scandinavia long ago and so completely that virtually no one there complains about it. You hear about it in the, broadly speaking, "Anglo-World" because there are still people in that world who resist it and speak out against it even though the response is often to try and destroy their careers, i.e. Jordon Peterson and on and on.

Same in Germany in the 1980s. Testosterone in general was demonized. I never thought that this could also be copied by the US, but sure enough, it no only got copied but turned into an international standard.
 
My point is that you have an agenda not of scientific nature.

difficult to discuss with someone who confuses the americas with the early U.S, says that Asia and Europe are one continent without having a point, and just makes accusations.
 
I wonder if the true reason for a lot of woke propaganda is to push to create another situation that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Allow "under served" communities to take out mortgages they cannot afford in the name of equity, so the banks can once again run like casinos. Maybe this is why big money is woke, and ever since Obama, the democrats are in bed with them. It is just a big ploy all in the name of greed. If you question the machinations of the plot, you're a racist hitler.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the true reason for a lot of woke propaganda is to push to create another situation that lead to the 2008 financial crisis. Allow "under served" communities to take out mortgages they cannot afford in the name of equity, so the banks can once again run like casinos. Maybe this is why big money is woke, and ever since Obama, the democrats are in bed with them. It is just a big ploy all in the name of greed. If you question the machinations of the plot, you're a racist hitler.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/2008-over-again-bofa-just-125500832.html
 
Last edited:
^^Fixed the link.

For me, this is truly an epiphany, I always knew there was greed behind the motives of Big Money becoming woke, but this makes it crystal clear imho. I figured it may have just been a means to market to a broad audience, deflect persecution by people like Al Sharpton. But it is actually very nefarious, they want to bring back toxic mortgages that dup unfit home buyers.

Bank of America was complicit in the Great Recession of 2008

2. Loose lending standards in the housing market
In the decade leading up to 2007, real estate and property values had been rising steadily, encouraging people to invest in property and buy homes.


By early to mid-2000s, the residential housing market was booming. To capitalize on the boom, mortgage lenders rushed to approve as many home loans as they could, including to borrowers with less-than-deal credit.


These risky loans, called subprime mortgages, would later become one of the main causes of the Great Recession.


A subprime mortgage is a type of loan issued to borrowers with low credit ratings. A prospective subprime borrower might have multiple dings on their credit history or dubious streams of income. In fact, the loan verification process was so lax at the time that it drew its own nickname: NINJA loans, which stands for "no income, no job, and no assets."


Because subprime mortgages were granted to people who previously couldn't qualify for conventional mortgages, it opened the market to a flood of new homebuyers. Easy housing credit resulted in the higher demand for homes. This contributed to the run-up in housing prices, which led to the rapid formation (and eventual bursting) of the 2000s housing bubble.


While interest rates at the time were low, subprime mortgages were adjustable-rate mortgages, which charged low, affordable payments initially, followed by higher payments in the years thereafter. The result? Borrowers who were already on shaky financial footing stood a good chance of not being able to make payments when the interest rate rose in the years following.


In the rush to take advantage of a hot market and low interest rates, many homebuyers took on loans without knowing the risks involved. But the common wisdom held that subprime loans were safe since real estate prices were sure to keep rising.

https://www.businessinsider.com/per...loose-lending-standards-in-the-housing-market

What is happening TODAY:

[FONT=&quot]Bank of America’s test plan is rolling out in Los Angeles, Dallas, Detroit and Charlotte and aimed at predominantly minority neighborhoods in those cities. It offers loans to minority buyers without the need for a down payment, closing costs or private mortgage insurance (PMI), an extra cost that’s customary for buyers who put down less than 20% of the home’s purchase price.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Crucially, the program also requires no minimum credit score, with eligibility focused instead on a borrower’s solid track record of rent payments and regular monthly bills like utilities and phone. Before applying, buyers must finish a homebuyer certification course that counsels them on ownership responsibilities and other considerations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But the move quickly drew mixed responses online, as Bank of America (and other large lenders) have been criticized in the past for predatory lending practices — especially when loaning to minority groups.
https://www.businessinsider.com/per...loose-lending-standards-in-the-housing-market[/FONT]

They really must think people are stupid (maybe they're right) but this is a nearly brazen attempt to acquire ill-gotten gains. Because they do it under the guise of "Wokery" they're going to get away with it too...
 
^^
Even Time magazine points the finger at policies aimed at achieving the same goals all the way back from the Clinton administration for part of the cause of the Great Recession. Wokeism before it had a name:

President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.

https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/cra_about.htm
 
As for slavery in the Ottoman world, I once saw a document which listed the prices for female slaves. The European female captives were the most expensive, then Circassians, down the list to African women, who were the cheapest. Apparently, the children of the European and Circassian women were allowed to live, but many of the children of the African women were aborted or killed at birth.

i searched a bit and couldn't find a similar list. are you sure that you aren't talking about the wikipedia article about Ottoman slavery? the author there writes:

"A study of the slave market of Ottoman Crete produces details about the prices of slaves. Factors such as age, skin color, virginity etc. significantly influenced prices. The most expensive slaves were those between 10 and 35 years of age, with the highest prices for European virgin girls 13–25 years of age and teenaged boys."

here the author or the wikipedia article writes "european" slaves. there is no mention of Circassian specifically.

the author of the source study about slavery in Ottoman Crete writes:

"Factors such as age, skin color, virginity, mental and physical disabilities, and even previous attempts to escape, significantly influenced slave prices. In all cases, the most expensive slaves were those between the ages of 10 and 35 years with the highest bids given for white virgin girls between 13 and 25 years, and teen boys, while at the other end of the spectrum were those with disabilities and black slaves."

again no mention of Circassians specifically. they probably go under white too, just like Rum and most other Slaves in the Ottoman empire that didn't come from Africa.

here is graphic from that study:
SlavesOttomanCrete.jpg
we can see that at least during this time period most slaves from europe were mostly either eastern slavs or caucasians. the Ottomans also never used terms like "white" or "european". these are modern generalizations.
 
The Turks were able to see race when they castrated those poor black slaves.
They certainly saw differences but race? not sure, never heard of ottoman race models.
Ottomans also castrated non-african slaves. More precice it usually wasn't the Ottomans who did the dirty work for them. Slaves ment for the arab slave trade were also castrated in non-ottoman european cities for example Venice or Prague.
can you give a source that states all african males or a significantly higher amount of african males were castrated?
 
The West African-Senegalese Anthropologist Tidiane N’Diaye works have been published in French, and as he notes in this article, no publisher in the USA or England has wanted to publish his works in English (his words per the article not mine). So I have watched some of his talks on Youtube and have read his interviews and excerpts from his work. I have used his research, along with Professor Thomas Sowell, University of Chicago Phd, and cited their works when addressing the issue of slavery as it seems that the woke USA neo-marxist education establishment would have younger Americans educated in the last 10 years to think slavery started with the Transatlantic Slave trade.

He notes the similar numbers of slaves from sub-Saharan Africa and the significant difference in the diaspora populations in the USA and South America vs. the Muslim world. He states the reason for this is because of the because of the "massive castration to avoid them from making strains" since the sub-Saharan Africans were deemed inferior and Black Africans became synomous with slave. He cites a Tunisian-Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) who makes these points. This is well before the first Europeans sailed to the West Coast.


https://africaglobalnews.com/the-arab-muslim-slave-trade/

David Gakunzi who is a West African descendant person living in Paris running the Paris Global Forum, which from what I gathered, writes on issues related to a broader African diaspora population, cites additional works and notes again the Black African men were "systematically castrated"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26500685?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

While there is evidence of Eastern European men (Slavic ethnic groups) being castrated if they worked near the royal harems and concubines, the European slaves were never viewed the same way as the Black Africans and were never subject to systematic castration (again those that were assigned to guard the Rich Ruling elites Harem, yes those most certainly were) given the views the Arabs had towards most of the sub-Saharan African ethnic groups, save perhaps the Africans from the Horn.
 
The West African-Senegalese Anthropologist Tidiane N’Diaye works have been published in French, and as he notes in this article, no publisher in the USA or England has wanted to publish his works in English (his words per the article not mine). So I have watched some of his talks on Youtube and have read his interviews and excerpts from his work. I have used his research, along with Professor Thomas Sowell, University of Chicago Phd, and cited their works when addressing the issue of slavery as it seems that the woke USA neo-marxist education establishment would have younger Americans educated in the last 10 years to think slavery started with the Transatlantic Slave trade.

He notes the similar numbers of slaves from sub-Saharan Africa and the significant difference in the diaspora populations in the USA and South America vs. the Muslim world. He states the reason for this is because of the because of the "massive castration to avoid them from making strains" since the sub-Saharan Africans were deemed inferior and Black Africans became synomous with slave. He cites a Tunisian-Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) who makes these points. This is well before the first Europeans sailed to the West Coast.


https://africaglobalnews.com/the-arab-muslim-slave-trade/

David Gakunzi who is a West African descendant person living in Paris running the Paris Global Forum, which from what I gathered, writes on issues related to a broader African diaspora population, cites additional works and notes again the Black African men were "systematically castrated"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26500685?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

While there is evidence of Eastern European men (Slavic ethnic groups) being castrated if they worked near the royal harems and concubines, the European slaves were never viewed the same way as the Black Africans and were never subject to systematic castration (again those that were assigned to guard the Rich Ruling elites Harem, yes those most certainly were) given the views the Arabs had towards most of the sub-Saharan African ethnic groups, save perhaps the Africans from the Horn.

in your first source there is no real evidence that black african men were systematically more castrated than others. they are comparing the arab slave trade with the trans-atlantic one and take the absence of offspring from those slaves in the middle east compared to those in the americas as a proof of large scale castration among african slaves in the middle east. but you don't really believe that yourself, do you?
i mean people constantly talk about slaves in rome not having a big impact on the overall genetics but it should somehow be different with the arab slave trade? or did the romans also castrate everyone?
also with that argumentation we should see a much larger genetic impact of non-african slaves in the arab world. where is it?
i can't access your second source
 
Alichu: What do you think life expectancy was on average in Imperial Rome? Next question, what do you think it was for a slave? The Imperial Roman period was on the low end 700 years before the Arab-Muslim conquest of the Levant, then North Africa and by 1000 AD well into East Africa and by 1200-1300 well into West Africa. The relevant comparison here in terms of time periods are the Transatlantic Slave trade which followed the Arab-Muslim slave trade, and coincided with it and ended while the Arab-Muslim slave trade went on.

Regarding the evidence, it is there if you read it. The evidence is that there was indeed systematic castration of Black Africans per the Arab-Muslim sources themselves. Well before any notions, largely based first on Anthropology in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, which shaped the European views on face first (Skeleton, facial, skull, morphology) and later the skin/hair/eye phenotypes, more of a later 19th and early 20th century, the Arab-Muslim texts themselves if you read both articles clearly in the 14th century saw the sub-Saharan Africans differently than Europeans. David Gakunzi clearly states "systematic castration".

The Arab-Muslim Slave Trade: Lifting the Taboo
Author(s): David Gakunzi
Source: Jewish Political Studies Review , Vol. 29, No. 3/4 (2018), pp. 40-42
Published by: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs


If you can find similar statements from Muslim scholars relative to other populations (Europeans, Asians, etc) that were made regarding Black Africans, then your retort to my post may have more substance.

As for the non-African slave impact on the Arab world, perhaps you can check out the Y-DNA Haplogroups in the Near East. There does seem to be lots of R1a and R1b (some I as well), which I don't think can be entirely attributable to Bronze Age migrations from the Steppe. So plausibly, some European slaves could have eventually been freed or produced children with other slaves. On the other hand, there seems to be little to no Y DNA SSA lineages with the majority of sub-Saharan Admixture in the Muslim world being from maternal lineages.
 

This thread has been viewed 121373 times.

Back
Top