Politics "WOKE" America

[Ailchu]

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.

? if we want to compare the genetic legacy of slaves we can take slave societies 10000 years ago because, maybe you forgot, we can analyze modern peoples genomes.

and i'll ask again, why should the slavery in Rome not have left significant genetical changes in the roman population, but in the case of arabs there must be or should be if they didn't castrate everyone according to you. are you really saying it's because the arabs treated their slaves better than the romans?

where are the large communities of people with non-african slave ancestors in the arab world that should exist comparable to those of black africans in the americas, because the arabs didn't castrate the non-africans?

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".

then give one of those arab-muslim sources. you are just relying on how arabs described black africans as evidence that they must have castrated them all? are you serious?

here is what an arab scholar(al-Jahiz) wrote about slavs:

"So it happens that when among two Slavic brothers, who come from the same mother and father, even if one should be a twin of the other, one only should be castrated, so the eunuch becomes a superior worker, cleverer, more dexterous and better suited for all manners of service and manual labour. You will also note him to be more intelligent in conversation. All these become his qualities. His brother, however, retainshis inborn ignorance and stupidity so common to Slavs. He won’t understand well a foreign language. The arm of this man will be clumsy and unfit for work as it won’t be guided by knowledge. And his tongue won’t be free nor eloquent and he won’t find words easily…”

 

[Angela]

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

The proof is in the genetics if you need more: the number of SSA y lines, even in areas where the percentage of SSA ancestry is relatively high, like North Africa, is disproportionately rather low, to the best of my recollection. In some areas of the Near East, despite the fact that African women were in harems, or were domestic servants, there isn't very much sign of even autosomal SSA, although there is some mtDna. SSA y lines again are very low.

Now it may partly be that more women were enslaved than men. As in the Roman world, male slaves would also engage in more dangerous work. However, that castration was performed on them is too well attested to be denied, imo. My readings of slavery in the Ottoman Empire indicate that the enslavement of men from the Balkans and the Caucasus was very different.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Angela: Your recollection is correct. Papers cited below in line with your recollection, which as I have stated before, is usually dead on.

Alichu: I never said European (Slavic groups) were not taken as slaves, but the preference was for Eastern European Women, as Angela alluded to, not Eastern European Men. As for the reality of castration, since the 2 West African scholars I cited wrote something that appears to contradict your political views, you dismiss it. Fair enough.

So lets look at some genetic studies regarding the issue.

1) Richards et al 2003 "Extensive Female-Mediated Gene Flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into NearEastern Arab Populations." From the paper and I quote

"In contrast, there is little evidence for male-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa in Y-chromosome haplotypes in Arab populations, including the Hadramawt. Taken together, these results are consistent with substantial migration from eastern Africa into Arabia, at least in part as a result of the Arab slave trade, and mainly female assimilation into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission."

From the paper again and I quote

"Indeed, unlike the situation in the Americas, there are no substantial communities of African descent in the Near East today. This is thought to be because relatively few men—mainly employed in manual labor and military service or castrated and employed as eunuchs—left descendants. Women, by contrast, were imported specifically for the sexual gratification of e´lite males and for their reproductive potential. The practice of manumission meant that their offspring were born free. Female slaves were, therefore, readily integrated into Islamic society (Lewis 1992; Segal 2001). A number of recent studies have compared Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation and drawn conclusions about sex-specific migration (Underhill et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002). Some of these have been associated with patrilocality versus matrilocality (Oota et al. 2001) and others with ethnic-specific long-range dispersal patterns (Thomas et al. 2002). By contrast, this study indicates the long-term effects of a particular socioeconomic system, based on slavery, on the gene pool of an entire region.

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)60630-2

David Gakunzi's (2018) paper, which I gave you the site for is more blunt regarding those who were sent off to fight wars, the Black Slaves sent to fight were used as "Canon Fodder" I hope I don't have to explain the concept of cannon fodder, but just to be clear, if an army is advancing on a fixed line of defense, the troops used as cannon fodder were sent out first to test the enemies line of defense (front line troops) which meant 100% casualty rate.

Bekada et al 2013 "Introducing the Algerian Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Profiles into the North African Landscape."


They find similar results regarding SSA admixture, it is significantly asymmetrical and dominated my maternal lineages (although some Y DNA was found in Algeria vs. zero in the Arab world). Although it seems not as drastic as what was found by Richards et al 2002 in the Arab world, the paper notes this female sex bias in SSA ancestry is found all over North Africa, except Libya (which might be due to insufficient sampling, which is why it is the anomaly).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056775

Fadlahoui-Zid et al 2014 examine Tunisian DNA, and have numerous other North African and Middle Eastern countries, and find the same thing, maternal SSA admixture to the exclusion of paternal. It is in the paper, although they are not as direct about it in the text. You need to go look at Supplement Table S2 which provides all the necessary information.

https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201499

So ok, you refuted N'Diaye and Gazunki's work. Lets see what kind of woke theory you can come up with to refute the papers above. I am particularly interested in what your theory is to refute the Richards et al 2003 paper.

 

[Ailchu]

Angela: Your recollection is correct. Papers cited below in line with your recollection, which as I have stated before, is usually dead on.

Alichu: I never said European (Slavic groups) were not taken as slaves, but the preference was for Eastern European Women, as Angela alluded to, not Eastern European Men. As for the reality of castration, since the 2 West African scholars I cited wrote something that appears to contradict your political views, you dismiss it. Fair enough.

i'm quite sure the preference was also for african women not for african men. the studies you posted prove that. they however do not prove a higher rate of castration among male african slaves than among male non-african slaves like you are wrongefully claiming.
if we would/could do the same analysis for any other slave society, be it romans, greeks, mongols, chinese etc. not just north africans or other muslim cultures, we would see the exact same thing. the men would procreate with their female captives whereas the opposite, male slaves procreating with free women would not have happened that often.
was that because the male captives were all castrated?
it seems you believe that is the case.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Alichu: Well again, you would have to look at the Y DNA haplogroups in the Arab world and the Ottoman empire and measure if any European Y DNA markers made a contribution to those populations at the time of the slave trade in the Arab world and the Ottoman empire. There are indeed large numbers of Y DNA R1a, R1b, and I. Certainly, some would have arrived with Bronze Age migrations, some with the Greeks and Romans and perhaps, again perhaps, European men taken into slavery eventually obtained freedom, maybe via conversion to Islam, and they never were castrated. From the evidence we have, there was a systematic system of castration for sub-Saharan African males. I have not seen any evidence in any of the research papers suggesting a similar practice towards Eastern European Males. Perhaps there are papers that document the same thing, I have not seen them. And I have looked since I have been dealing with the subject of the European Transatlantic slave trade and the Arab-Muslim/Ottoman, etc slave trade and pointed out what the evidence suggest regarding the black males from sub-Saharan Africa, which did not happen to them in the USA and South America.

If you are aware of a published paper that documents systematic castration of Eastern European Males, please link it and I will read it (trust me I have been reviewing papers to see if that is documented and I have not seen any evidence of it yet). As for ancient Rome, Greeks, Mongols and Chinese, yes, I am certain castration of males was common. Not turning this into a theological discussion but the NT books clearly indicate slaves being castrated (eunuchs) was very common.

 

[Ailchu]

Alichu: Well again, you would have to look at the Y DNA haplogroups in the Arab world and the Ottoman empire and measure if any European Y DNA markers made a contribution to those populations at the time of the slave trade in the Arab world and the Ottoman empire. There are indeed large numbers of Y DNA R1a, R1b, and I. Certainly, some would have arrived with Bronze Age migrations, some with the Greeks and Romans and perhaps, again perhaps, European men taken into slavery eventually obtained freedom, maybe via conversion to Islam, and they never were castrated. From the evidence we have, there was a systematic system of castration for sub-Saharan African males. I have not seen any evidence in any of the research papers suggesting a similar practice towards Eastern European Males. Perhaps there are papers that document the same thing, I have not seen them. And I have looked since I have been dealing with the subject of the European Transatlantic slave trade and the Arab-Muslim/Ottoman, etc slave trade and pointed out what the evidence suggest regarding the black males from sub-Saharan Africa, which did not happen to them in the USA and South America.

If you are aware of a published paper that documents systematic castration of Eastern European Males, please link it and I will read it (trust me I have been reviewing papers to see if that is documented and I have not seen any evidence of it yet). As for ancient Rome, Greeks, Mongols and Chinese, yes, I am certain castration of males was common. Not turning this into a theological discussion but the NT books clearly indicate slaves being castrated (eunuchs) was very common.

maybe you are confusing something. i'm not asking for evidence for the fact that some african males were castrated. i'm asking for evidence for your claim that african male slaves were siginificantly more often castrated than non-african male slaves.
for this you have not yet given real evidence.
was there systematic castration of african male slaves? yes there was. but there was also systematic castration of non-african male slaves. else there would never have been "castration houses" in Venice.
another example would be medieval Verdun, which the historian Charles Verlinden called a " downright factory for eunuchs".

 

[td120]

-the Circassians' (for the most part) adoption of Islam is a late event (XVIIIc.) . The beauty of the Circassian ladies was well known...so was the "civilised and humane behaviour" of the male Circassians (they wisely decided to follow the retreating Ottomans troops from virtually every Balkan settlement of theirs committing every despicable crime the mind of the fallen man could think of ).

-drawing parallels between Rome (pagan or Christian ) and Islam societies is a very brave move (totally different worlds) -Islam afaik plain forbids owning Muslim slaves. There are rare accounts that household Christian female slaves (on the Balkans for example) were granted freedom if they expressed the desire to convert, the Mistress would often then keep them as handmaids. I would not think that such a desire expressed by a Black slave would have met a very enthusiastic response even among their pious Muslim Ottoman masters .
The Ottomans must have realized very quickly that SS Africans were plain not good for soldiers, not even as oarsmen, so their role must have been quite restricted. The Ottomans had enough Balkan ,East Slav and Caucasus abducted youngs...They sure used the experience of Persians, Romans and Arabs in this (and virtually every) field and decided to "play safe" here, as the mistakes and experiments are costly...No one in his right mind would deprive a promising soldier of his testosterone.

-The "attitude" towards non-Caucasian Muslims by the Arabs for example is quite obvious even today. Oddly (nah... rather expectedly...just human nature) some of the most "zealous" and xenophobic Muslims will be found among the former.
The disgusting behavior of the wealthy spoiled Petro-Dollar families towards even their own kin aside...Lo, they sometimes even make headlines...sometime$$$$.

-The Ottomans retained (or quickly acquired) the Venetian and Genovese "taste" for Slavic and Circassian female slaves.

-There are still descendants of Black slaves and servants (probably already freed men) in Turkey (YT videos available for the curious)...and in the beginning of XXc. - on the Balkans (Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania).Some have been abducted by pirates, later freed. Others brought by local Ottomans.

It was on this forum not many years ago that a poll by a "reputable" institution in the field showed that some of the most xenophobic ethnicities resided in the Indian Subcontinent (! yep...) and in the Far East (no big of a surprise to be fair-some people are just better at hiding it).

An article worth reading:

"Оwning Slаvеry" by RV Уоung

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Pope Gregory the Great as early as 605 AD outlawed the sale of Catholics as slaves to non Catholics. By the 7th century Queen Balthid and the Council of Chalon banned Slavery in France, by 863 Pope John XXIII forbid any Catholic to enslave any other Catholic (Orthodox as well since this is before the 1054 Schism). So effectively, the only Europeans by the 9th century that could be enslaved were pagans. So the Christians had the same views as the Muslims, a Catholic could not enslave a Catholic or later Orthodox as well, and a Muslim could not enslave a Muslim. So Muslims in Arabia, the easiest source of potential slaves were sub-Saharan Africans and areas of Europe that were not part of the Christian kingdoms. Of course Constantinople would fall in 1453, but that is another story.

As for the SSA populations, per several articles above, when sent to fight as soldiers, they were used as "Cannon fodder" or as laborers doing the most dangerous types of jobs.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

maybe you are confusing something. i'm not asking for evidence for the fact that some african males were castrated. i'm asking for evidence for your claim that african male slaves were siginificantly more often castrated than non-african male slaves.
for this you have not yet given real evidence.
was there systematic castration of african male slaves? yes there was. but there was also systematic castration of non-african male slaves. else there would never have been "castration houses" in Venice.
another example would be medieval Verdun, which the historian Charles Verlinden called a " downright factory for eunuchs".

And what I am saying is we have texts from Arab-Muslim sources that clearly indicate their views that the sub-Saharan Africans were not worthy of being seen in terms of their humanity as the same as other peoples they enslaved. The papers I linked clearly cite Arab-Muslim sources saying that. Gazunki 2018 states "the Arab slave trade was characterized by appalling violence, castration, and rape. The men were systematically castrated to prevent them from reproducing and becoming a stock. This inhumane practice resulted in a high death rate: six out of 10 people who were mutilated died from their wounds in castration centers." He cites the Tunisian Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) who cited the sub-Saharan blacks as having a lower degree of humanity.

Gakunzi cites the following Algerian scholar, Ahmed al-Wancharisi (1430/1431–1508) who said the following:

"I have been asked about slaves from the land of Abyssinia who profess monotheism and accept the rules of the Holy Law: is it legal or not to buy and sell them?… If their conversion to Islam comes after the establishment of a property right [on these slaves], then Islam does not demand liberation, because slavery was caused by unbelief. The state of servitude persists after the disappearance of unbelief because of its existence in the past."


Now here is what I am saying, I read the Arab-Muslim legal scholars writings themselves which justified the castration of sub-Saharan African males per what I cited above, which is 100 plus years before the European Transatlantic and other scholars that I have cited have said similar things regarding castration of SSA males. What I don't see if these same Arab-Muslim legal scholars writing the same things regarding non sub-Saharan African populations. I am not saying their are not such texts out there, I just have not found a paper that quotes Muslim legal and religious scholars justifying the castration of European or Asian males the same way they did regarding sub-Saharan African males.

So I have presented evidence for the following:

1) I have evidence of Arab-Muslim scholars basing the castration of sub-Saharan African males due to their lower degree of humanity.
2) I have West African Scholars (N'Diaye, Gakunzi) and Genetic evidence supporting the castration of sub-Saharan African males.

On the other hand, I do not find any Arab-Muslim legal scholars saying the Europeans were a lower degree of humanity which was their legal theory to justify the mass castration they did. You may be correct that Eastern European Males were systematically castrated as well, but you have no evidence to support that. It is purely conjecture. You are the one making the claim, find a legitimate research paper and DNA study that supports your claim. I have not been able to find it, not saying again Eastern European males also faced systematic castration, but no paper I have seen has made such statements. Again, talking about systematic castration, Eastern European Males assigned to guard the ruling elites Harems/Concubines would have been castrated, no doubt, just as any other male slave assigned for such duty.

 

[Jovialis]

I was thinking about making another thread called "Woke Europe"

Giorgia Meloni May Lead Italy, and Europe Is Worried

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/world/europe/giorgia-meloni-italy-right.html

Let's go Giorgia!

 

[td120]

Fingers crossed. The Swedes had an "interesting" elections result too.

 

[Ailchu]

And what I am saying is we have texts from Arab-Muslim sources that clearly indicate their views that the sub-Saharan Africans were not worthy of being seen in terms of their humanity as the same as other peoples they enslaved. The papers I linked clearly cite Arab-Muslim sources saying that. Gazunki 2018 states "the Arab slave trade was characterized by appalling violence, castration, and rape. The men were systematically castrated to prevent them from reproducing and becoming a stock. This inhumane practice resulted in a high death rate: six out of 10 people who were mutilated died from their wounds in castration centers." He cites the Tunisian Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) who cited the sub-Saharan blacks as having a lower degree of humanity.

i can't access that source. and i also can't find any hint that this citation of Ibn Khaldun is real.

Gakunzi cites the following Algerian scholar, Ahmed al-Wancharisi (1430/1431–1508) who said the following:

"I have been asked about slaves from the land of Abyssinia who profess monotheism and accept the rules of the Holy Law: is it legal or not to buy and sell them?… If their conversion to Islam comes after the establishment of a property right [on these slaves], then Islam does not demand liberation, because slavery was caused by unbelief. The state of servitude persists after the disappearance of unbelief because of its existence in the past."

interesting. if we look at the study about the ottoman slave market in Crete, which mainly sold non-african slaves, the author notes the high amount of converts among the slaves. the muslims made a difference between people who were born muslim and those who were not. and you are trying to picture it as if it had anything to do with their ancestry.

On the other hand, I do not find any Arab-Muslim legal scholars saying the Europeans were a lower degree of humanity which was their legal theory to justify the mass castration they did. You may be correct that Eastern European Males were systematically castrated as well, but you have no evidence to support that. It is purely conjecture. You are the one making the claim, find a legitimate research paper and DNA study that supports your claim. I have not been able to find it, not saying again Eastern European males also faced systematic castration, but no paper I have seen has made such statements. Again, talking about systematic castration, Eastern European Males assigned to guard the ruling elites Harems/Concubines would have been castrated, no doubt, just as any other male slave assigned for such duty.

no evidence for systematic castration of slaves that were from the european continent? why would there be castration houses in Venice. why would there be a literal industry for eunuchs in europe? i'm not claiming that all men were castrated like you however. perhaps a difference in the understanding of the word "systematic"?
of course, once the slavs were christianized there were no longer slaves from there sold anymore unless they were captured by tatars. and that supply dried up in the early 18th century.

 

[Ailchu]

Another irony was that when I visited the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, our guide told me that all of the white slaves were given to the men, but all of the black slaves were castrated and given to the women.

There's this fantasy in the west that all of the people of color are united against the oppressive whites. But the reality is that anti-black racism exists in the non-SSA/non-European countries and cultures too.

that the black eunuchs were castrated and given to the women doesn't have to be tied to racism. it could also have been an additional "safety measure" because if one of those slaves still managed to have a child with one of the women it would have been visible that it was not the sultan's child. maybe it was also a question of availability over the course of time. as noted in the study about the slave market in cyprus: "about two thirds of the 152 slaves with an identified place of origin mentioned in the registers came from areas that were either at war with the Ottomans or on the routes of Ottoman military campaigns."

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Ailchu: You can't get the Gazunki cite. Type in the journal article name and it should come up. I think that the 2018 article is not behind a paywall. Again, I have been focusing extensively on the Arab-Muslims and their enslavement of sub-Saharan Africans. I haven't really been dealing with the Ottomans who came later. They are now a different story, yes, they did castrate many male slaves as well, but was it systematic is my question. The Tatars, who were allied with the Ottomans, were the largest suppliers of Eastern European slaves to the Ottomans and yes castration of males was common, but again was it systematic across the board. If it was, then you should be able to provide evidence to support such assertions. So yes, male slaves in Venice in the royal houses were castrated, but again, was castration systematically practiced.

I think it is fair to say if you were a male slave, regardless of where you were enslaved and regardless of your ethnic/racial background, if you were assigned to guard the royal palace, the homes of any rich elite merchant or scholar, or in the Muslim world, the harems/concubines, etc, you were castrated.

On the other hand, regarding again the Arabs and sub-Saharan African males, the evidence does suggest "systematic castration for all males", not just the ones working in the royal houses for the elites, etc.

Again you are arguing to say I have to prove that Eastern European male slaves were treated by the Arabs and then Ottomans exactly the same way as the sub-Saharan African males by the Arabs-Muslims, etc. Well I have provided evidence of what happened to the black African males, you keep trying to dismiss it. What I have not seen is any clear research writings and text saying the Eastern European male slaves were to be systematically castrated the same way what happened to the sub-Saharan African Male slaves

You can play your sophistry game all you want. Read what I wrote, I don't think I can be any clearer.

Here are the references from the Gazunki 2018

Notes1. Gustav Nachtigal, Sahara et Soudan, vol. 1 (Hachette Livre, 1974).2. Ibn Haldoun, Al-Muqaddim, Prolegomènes (1857).3. Ahmad al-Wancharisi, Kitab al-Mi‘yar al-Mughrib (XVth century), in Bernard Lewis, Islam (Paris: Gallimard, Quarto, 2005).4. Henry Morton Stanley, À travers le continent mystérieux (1878).

The Ibn Khaldun works are real, his works are available at Amazon but I think mostly in Arabic (which I do not understand). So his works and writings are real and were translated into Arabic and obviously somewhere along the line into English.

 

[Ailchu]

Ailchu: You can't get the Gazunki cite. Type in the journal article name and it should come up. I think that the 2018 article is not behind a paywall. Again, I have been focusing extensively on the Arab-Muslims and their enslavement of sub-Saharan Africans. I haven't really been dealing with the Ottomans who came later. They are now a different story, yes, they did castrate many male slaves as well, but was it systematic is my question. The Tatars, who were allied with the Ottomans, were the largest suppliers of Eastern European slaves to the Ottomans and yes castration of males was common, but again was it systematic across the board. If it was, then you should be able to provide evidence to support such assertions. So yes, male slaves in Venice in the royal houses were castrated, but again, was castration systematically practiced.

I think it is fair to say if you were a male slave, regardless of where you were enslaved and regardless of your ethnic/racial background, if you were assigned to guard the royal palace, the homes of any rich elite merchant or scholar, or in the Muslim world, the harems/concubines, etc, you were castrated.

On the other hand, regarding again the Arabs and sub-Saharan African males, the evidence does suggest "systematic castration for all males", not just the ones working in the royal houses for the elites, etc.

Again you are arguing to say I have to prove that Eastern European male slaves were treated by the Arabs and then Ottomans exactly the same way as the sub-Saharan African males by the Arabs-Muslims, etc. Well I have provided evidence of what happened to the black African males, you keep trying to dismiss it. What I have not seen is any clear research writings and text saying the Eastern European male slaves were to be systematically castrated the same way what happened to the sub-Saharan African Male slaves

You can play your sophistry game all you want. Read what I wrote, I don't think I can be any clearer.

Here are the references from the Gazunki 2018

Notes1. Gustav Nachtigal, Sahara et Soudan, vol. 1 (Hachette Livre, 1974).2. Ibn Haldoun, Al-Muqaddim, Prolegomènes (1857).3. Ahmad al-Wancharisi, Kitab al-Mi‘yar al-Mughrib (XVth century), in Bernard Lewis, Islam (Paris: Gallimard, Quarto, 2005).4. Henry Morton Stanley, À travers le continent mystérieux (1878).

The Ibn Khaldun works are real, his works are available at Amazon but I think mostly in Arabic (which I do not understand). So his works and writings are real and were translated into Arabic and obviously somewhere along the line into English.

i think your quote is not from a medieval arab scholar but perhaps from Gustav Nachtigal? it seems that he is also quoted in your source and it would fit since he traveled through Chad in the 19th century where he was traveling with slave hunters and observed the practice and noted that a lot of the boys died.

 

[Angela]

@Palermo,
He will never admit it. In his world only Europeans can practice systematic racism, moreover, there are no Europeans and if there are, then Turks are Europeans. End of story.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

@Palermo,
He will never admit it. In his world only Europeans can practice systematic racism, moreover, there are no Europeans and if there are, then Turks are Europeans. End of story.

I will admit I am a Catholic apologist in the sense that hold to the Nicene and Apostles Creeds and defend orthodox Catholic doctrine. I also acknowledge in history where Catholic Kingdoms participated in the slave trade, which France, Portugal and Spain in the 15th-16th century clearly were. They did. The Muslims and their allies (I get the sense he is a crypto Muslim apologist), although he doesn't have, and please excuse me I don't mean this with disrespect, the "you know what" to admit it, will tell you that Islam forbids castration. Of course, so they paid the slave catchers to do the castration so the ruling elites, legal scholars, politicians, can say well we bought the slaves that way.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

i think your quote is not from a medieval arab scholar but perhaps from Gustav Nachtigal? it seems that he is also quoted in your source and it would fit since he traveled through Chad in the 19th century where he was traveling with slave hunters and observed the practice and noted that a lot of the boys died.

No the quote is from the Arab scholar. 2. Ibn Haldoun, Al-Muqaddim, Prolegomènes (1857). Haldoun's work are available at Amazon in Arabic, which I suspect you might be able to read and translate yourself. Gazunki quotes Haldoun for that quote, not Gustav Nachtigal which is the first footnote. I have the damn paper in front of me and regarding the lower humanity of the sub-Saharan African, that quote was attribute to Ibn Haldoun. Do you not understand English?

So are you saying I am lying? or are you saying Gazunki made it up? Is that what you are saying. God God almighty man. I will admit that I have now been here almost 3 years, I have had disagreements with some folks yes (including some who are from modern Italy, i.e. Nord Italia), I have had disagreements with some Northern Euros who hold to the Steppe Hypotheses so dogmatically that the new Southern Arc papers can't be valid. Still, I would like to think I could sit down with a plate of pasta and wine, or Hamburger and Beer with most folks here and find we can get along well.

You on the other hand, I have to say, I don't think I could stand be at the same table with you. You actually make me want to curse in every Italian word my grandfather taught me and then turn around and do the same thing in English for full effect.

 

[Angela]

I will admit I am a Catholic apologist in the sense that hold to the Nicene and Apostles Creeds and defend orthodox Catholic doctrine. I also acknowledge in history where Catholic Kingdoms participated in the slave trade, which France, Portugal and Spain in the 15th-16th century clearly were. They did. The Muslims and their allies (I get the sense he is a crypto Muslim apologist), although he doesn't have, and please excuse me I don't mean this with disrespect, the "you know what" to admit it, will tell you that Islam forbids castration. Of course, so they paid the slave catchers to do the castration so the ruling elites, legal scholars, politicians, can say well we bought the slaves that way.

Yes, well, Islamic law also says that slaves can petition the courts if they're mistreated, yet every article I've ever read on the subject, most written by Muslims, say that the only cases which were heard were ones where there was a question whether the person should have been enslaved in the first place.

It would be like me saying the Romans didn't fight wars of conquest, or didn't enslave people, or the hereditary rulers of the Italian city-states didn't help bring the invasions of the Middle Ages and Renaissance on us by their rivalries and double dealing and alliances with foreign powers, or that Mussolini didn't invent fascism.

Where is the comparable honesty from other members about their country's past misdeeds?

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Hi Angela:

There is an open access book by Cambridge edited by Thomas Olander. Lazaradis mentioned it as this work puts the Anatolian IE branch dating as far back as 4400 BC. I would think it perhaps should be linked in the Southern Arc thread but that is your call. It is free and open access, I downloaded a copy and plan to take a look at it.

Cheers, PT