Was the Arab slave trade about as deadly as the Atlantic slave trade during the same era? Why isn’t it as discussed, historically?
Was the Arab slave trade about as deadly as the Atlantic slave trade during the same era?
Was the Arab slave trade about as deadly as the Atlantic slave trade during the same era? Why isn’t it as discussed, historically?
It is discussed. Either you weren't paying attention in high school, or your school is shit.
I never see anyone discussing it on the modern international stage when it comes to discussing the impact of slavery on Africa.
The Rape of Nanjing is extensively discussed by modern Asians
>I never see anyone discussing it on the modern international stage when it comes to discussing the impact of slavery on Africa.
This topic is mainly discussed by the people who are descendants of the slaves. What is the situation of the slave descendants in the MENA region?
>slave descendants in the MENA region?
Very small minority, most people don't even know they exist. The only exception is Saudi Arabia where "Afro-Arabs" are a significant part of the population, but they don't hold any grudges towards Saudi Arabians.
>but they don't hold any grudges towards Saudi Arabians.
Why not?
It was much easier for slaves to earn freedom in Arabia. It wasn't generational chattel slavery like in the New World.
Arabs tried plantation slavery back in the 8th and 9th centuries, but there was a massive rebellion that killed a fuckton of people. They decided it was a bad idea.
So what is there to discuss? Africans don't discuss slavery, only their diaspora in the New World (primarily the US). Who should then host international forums and conduct academic research in the Arab slave trade?
There are also black yemenis iraqis and jordanians
>Rape of Nanjing is extensively discussed by modern Asians
I said AMERICAN
That's because the Arab slave trade didn't really impact Africa. Most of Africa was Muslim and taking Muslims as slaves is haram. That's why they raided Europe for slaves. The "impact" of the Arab slave trade on Africa was probably distinctly positive.
lol
Okay…? So? The graph doesn’t say “list of top 20 most deadly events that take place in a few decades” it says “most deadly events”.
It’s interesting to look and compare the death toll of stuff as far ranging as the Arab slave trade versus stuff as short lasting as World War 2. Why are you being such a butthurt homosexual about it?
>It’s interesting to look and compare the death toll of stuff as far ranging as the Arab slave trade versus stuff as short lasting as World War 2. Why are you being such a butthurt homosexual about it?
I'm not. You're the one crying here
By your logic the Roman empire is an event.
>Most of Africa was Muslim
Central Africa was mostly pagan; thousands were enslaved by Arabs in the 19th century
Merchants sometimes used slaves to carry goods all the way to the coast, which resulted in many deaths from disease and exhaustion
BTW this is one of the reasons i don't believe there were twenty million people in Congo before the Free State; jungles can't support a very big population and the region was hit pretty hard by Arab raids
>arabs
Are you sure its not berbers that raid blacks in africa
Arr rook same
In Central Africa it was mostly Omani Arabs and Swahili people (Bantus who converted to islam and mixed with Arabs)
I recall hearing it might have been more deadly. I never heard it talked about in school personally, but I would assume it depends a lot on the school you go to, but is probably it doesn't seem directly related to the west or western history.
It’s is. It’s also irrelevant to American history. Same reason the Rape of Nanking is irrelevant compared to the Holocaust or Pearl Harbor.
Americans have only one museum for first worlders and museums for the israeli holocaust in every city
Their one museum for first worlders is a room with a painting and an arrow
What are you on about?
My bad didn't know I replied to an illiterate retard
its not irrelevant to american history, only less relevant. one of the first american wars was against barbary pirates who enslaved sailors
Because that would be Islamophobic, and Muslims constantly shill it claiming it wasn't as bad.
>deadliest event
>has 5 century ranges, 7 century range, and one 1000 year range
Lmao
Are you perhaps ESL? Event is usually used to refer to a small period of time but there is nothing contradictory about events being stretched into longer periods of time. The whole of civilization could be framed as an event
yes it is dumbass. the rest occur within one century and for a matter of a few years up to a few decades
Because in the USA nobody cares
White supremacists pretend it is and claim it's not being discussed to justify the Atlantic slave trade
>pretend it is
it was much deadlier
>historically
This phrase is almost always used for bait, but the answer is that there are no large diaspora populations of Black people directly descended from the Arab slave trade, nor are Arabs the most populous race in this country. Why would a bunch of White Americans who can't even point out an African country on a map care about the Arab slave trade?
Hey retarded American, not everyone is thinking about dumbfuck internal American discussions when they’re making posts
Yes they are. Even if you don't like it, you're thinking about it right now.
I was very specifically thinking about the African perspective on African history when I made the thread.
Yes, they were both different theatres of the Semitic Slave Trade.
YWNBW
>Pedro Hernandez
post nose
>Congo Free State
meme chart
>equivalent deaths today
WTF is this retarded "they killed people that didn't exist shit" the holodomor was several million deaths but not 50,000,000.
>GHENGIS KHAN KILLED 800,000,000
Its not the healthiest thing to get castrated and then marched across the Sahara (Bonus reminder: Qt slaves from the Caucasus were sold for way more than female slaves from Africa)