Philaflava.com ::

hired gun wrote:you know African kings traded slaves too!!! You are a slave in yo own mind! Kultcha cipha god.

drizzle wrote:so it's ok to own a dude as long as you own his wife and children too?

what about tribes selling members of other tribes to europeans, and before europeans to arabs?

and aside from the colonial period of african history there's no precedent of tribes/nations (not just in africa, everywhere) committing systematic genocide?

Again, i'm not trying to argue anything as better or worse. I'm not trying to write off any period or event as insignificant or inconsequential. Just pointing out that all of it, the whole idea and institution of slavery going back to the Hammurabi code regardless of historical age race or religion is unspeakably terrible.

Trying to pose one as being preferrable to the other in order to make a point in discussion of race, well...

Mindbender Futurama wrote: I never said Arab slavery was any better or worse. I personally feel the one where the most cultural damage and most death and destruction caused is the worst one.

Thun wrote:

hired gun wrote:you know African kings traded slaves too!!! You are a slave in yo own mind! Kultcha cipha god.

Are you trying to be funny or insightful? You are failing desperately at both with every post.

vinylpops wrote:I like how no one has offered a valid argument on why white people deserve or don't deserve to be apart of the hip hop culture.

Just rampant racialism, textbook regurgitations and wikipedia droppings.

Let's talk more about race, because that always goes somewhere. Especially, since those well educated in the subject don't teach, but instead, toss snide remarks like they are the only one's well versed in the subject (or CAN be well versed in it).

Anyways, my argument: White people can, canadians can't. End. Just kidding.

hired gun wrote:

drizzle wrote:so it's ok to own a dude as long as you own his wife and children too?

what about tribes selling members of other tribes to europeans, and before europeans to arabs?

and aside from the colonial period of african history there's no precedent of tribes/nations (not just in africa, everywhere) committing systematic genocide?

Again, i'm not trying to argue anything as better or worse. I'm not trying to write off any period or event as insignificant or inconsequential. Just pointing out that all of it, the whole idea and institution of slavery going back to the Hammurabi code regardless of historical age race or religion is unspeakably terrible.

Trying to pose one as being preferrable to the other in order to make a point in discussion of race, well...

While two wrongs dont make a right, mitigating the effects of one over the other serves to remove fault from one group. If I capture you as a P.O.W. but feed you well, and let you live with no torture...that is not the same as being a P.O.W. where I dismember you and give you no hope of survival. Same thing only in name. The fact remains that Africans not enslaved in Chattel did not systemically lose all traces of language, culture and religion.

Genocide is an altogether different kettle of fish. The history of chattlel slavery is what makes it different. The reasons behind it, and how and why it was enacted. Its not as simple as saying, slavery is slavery.

Money Gripp wrote:My identity as a white male makes it hard for me to understand, but I'm going to go out on a limb here:

I think African blacks would probably say that genocide, war, and rampant poverty are a tad bit worse for black people than some redneck putting a Confederate flag on his pick-up truck.

But maybe I'm wrong.

hired gun wrote:

vinylpops wrote:I like how no one has offered a valid argument on why white people deserve or don't deserve to be apart of the hip hop culture.

Just rampant racialism, textbook regurgitations and wikipedia droppings.

Let's talk more about race, because that always goes somewhere. Especially, since those well educated in the subject don't teach, but instead, toss snide remarks like they are the only one's well versed in the subject (or CAN be well versed in it).

Anyways, my argument: White people can, canadians can't. End. Just kidding.

I've only tossed snide remarks when tossed at. The fact remains is that a group of people were oppressed. and the argument here is, they oppressed themselves and are the only one's culpable. I've heard that argument since I first took history. Basically its black people's fault. We didn't have any help in putting ourselves in the position we are historically in. That's basically what we are arguing here. People have taken historical generizations without putting them into the proper context. Sadly, the two who are most representing this idea, dont have the ability to articulate it any real way. I'm on a losing team, fighting a battle that no one's ever been able to win. If white people could see there privilege we wouldn't have issues with race in the first place.

drizzle wrote:

hired gun wrote:

drizzle wrote:so it's ok to own a dude as long as you own his wife and children too?

what about tribes selling members of other tribes to europeans, and before europeans to arabs?

and aside from the colonial period of african history there's no precedent of tribes/nations (not just in africa, everywhere) committing systematic genocide?

Again, i'm not trying to argue anything as better or worse. I'm not trying to write off any period or event as insignificant or inconsequential. Just pointing out that all of it, the whole idea and institution of slavery going back to the Hammurabi code regardless of historical age race or religion is unspeakably terrible.

Trying to pose one as being preferrable to the other in order to make a point in discussion of race, well...

While two wrongs dont make a right, mitigating the effects of one over the other serves to remove fault from one group. If I capture you as a P.O.W. but feed you well, and let you live with no torture...that is not the same as being a P.O.W. where I dismember you and give you no hope of survival. Same thing only in name. The fact remains that Africans not enslaved in Chattel did not systemically lose all traces of language, culture and religion.

Genocide is an altogether different kettle of fish. The history of chattlel slavery is what makes it different. The reasons behind it, and how and why it was enacted. Its not as simple as saying, slavery is slavery.

Feed me or torture me, i'm still going to do my hardest to slit your throat and leave. Just like history is written by the winners, mitigating circumstances only exist in the eye captor, not the captive (at least until the Stockholm syndrome sets in you sexy thing )

Are you implying that the pre-european slavers in africa somehow had better or more humane reasons than the europeans did? Are you implying they somehow had a better reason than economic benefit with an underlying contempt and disdain for their subjects?

hired gun wrote:Basically its black people's fault. We didn't have any help in putting ourselves in the position we are historically in. .

drizzle wrote:

hired gun wrote:Basically its black people's fault. We didn't have any help in putting ourselves in the position we are historically in. .

This is ludicrous and if i at any point came across as trying to defend this, then i didn't express myself clearly. The devastating effects of colonization on the African continent are not arguable. All I'm trying to say here is that trying to gloss over centuries of tribal and racial strife and injustice that existed before the first European ever stepped foot on the sahara in order to strengthen an argument is just beyond wrong.

vinylpops wrote:

hired gun wrote:

vinylpops wrote:I like how no one has offered a valid argument on why white people deserve or don't deserve to be apart of the hip hop culture.

Just rampant racialism, textbook regurgitations and wikipedia droppings.

Let's talk more about race, because that always goes somewhere. Especially, since those well educated in the subject don't teach, but instead, toss snide remarks like they are the only one's well versed in the subject (or CAN be well versed in it).

Anyways, my argument: White people can, canadians can't. End. Just kidding.

I've only tossed snide remarks when tossed at. The fact remains is that a group of people were oppressed. and the argument here is, they oppressed themselves and are the only one's culpable. I've heard that argument since I first took history. Basically its black people's fault. We didn't have any help in putting ourselves in the position we are historically in. That's basically what we are arguing here. People have taken historical generizations without putting them into the proper context. Sadly, the two who are most representing this idea, dont have the ability to articulate it any real way. I'm on a losing team, fighting a battle that no one's ever been able to win. If white people could see there privilege we wouldn't have issues with race in the first place.

Just to let you know-- I wasn't talking about just you. The problem with this discussion is always one thing: One person refuses to listen to the other's point of view and side of things. In reality, it's almost impossible for a white person to 100% understand the black point of view, or the everyday struggle with being black, but what's funny is people usually never even meet halfway and listen so there is a possibility for 25%, 35%, or 50% understanding. Everyone always has to regurgitate wiki blurbs and what they read in some obscure book in their history class with Mr. Bigglesworth. Never any listening, or teaching for that matter.

What I bolded up there-- I agree with you. I learned that lesson from someone on this board once before actually.

Reading Native Son actually helped too. Probably a juvenile comment to some, but oh well.

hired gun wrote:

Thun wrote:

hired gun wrote:you know African kings traded slaves too!!! You are a slave in yo own mind! Kultcha cipha god.

Are you trying to be funny or insightful? You are failing desperately at both with every post.

I'm following your lead today, Thun. I know we need to get over it (slavery that is).

hired gun wrote:

Money Gripp wrote:My identity as a white male makes it hard for me to understand, but I'm going to go out on a limb here:

I think African blacks would probably say that genocide, war, and rampant poverty are a tad bit worse for black people than some redneck putting a Confederate flag on his pick-up truck.

But maybe I'm wrong.

No you're right. and you just describe African American history till about the sixties. Although we cleaned up a bit more nicely around the turn of the century. had that nasty lynching habit though. You do realize that most of Africa is stable, though right? That the whole continent is not war torn? You do also understand that most of that genocide has more to do with religion and not the inferiority of a "race" of people, right? Just checking.

That's where any humanist argument ultimately leads to. The thing is that whatever tribal strife (there wasn't really any racial strife) didn't completely wipe away a groups, culture, history etc. Now, don't get me wrong..so you understand..white man ain't the devil. there are enough black bastards past and present to sit there...but that's still not the point. Chattel, was european design...it was insidious. Its funny how no one disputes the Nazi Holocaust, and Chattel Slavery did effectively the same thing, just over a longer period of time. really very little difference.

vinylpops wrote:....on why white people deserve or don't deserve to be apart of the hip hop culture....
Anyways, my argument: White people can, canadians can't. End.
.

hired gun wrote: I'm losing album sales with each post!

drizzle wrote:

Mindbender Futurama wrote: I never said Arab slavery was any better or worse. I personally feel the one where the most cultural damage and most death and destruction caused is the worst one.

even a literary genius like yourself has to realize this is self contradictory right?

drizzle wrote:just to close out, going back to the og topic, most insightful thing in the thread so far:

vinylpops wrote:....on why white people deserve or don't deserve to be apart of the hip hop culture....
Anyways, my argument: White people can, canadians can't. End.
.

done

admiral wrote:

and reparations and an exodus back to Africa is a necessary part of that healing process...

what the fuck makes you think Africa would want an influx of comparatively rich Americans invading their continent?

The Forgotten Holocaust:
The Eastern Slave Trade

The Arab Slave Trade is the longest yet least discussed of the two major trades. It begins in the 7th century AD as Arabs and other Asians poured into Northern and Eastern Africa under the banner of Islam, either converting or subjugating the African societies they came upon. In the beginning there was some level of mutual respect between the Blacks and the more Caucasian-Semitic Arabs. Mihdja, a Black man, is said to be the first Muslim killed in battle while another, Bilal, is regarded as a "third of the faith." Dhu'l-Nun al-Misri, born in Upper Egypt near Sudan, is regarded as the founder of Sufism. Today Sufism's greatest stronghold is in Southern Egypt and Sudan. Islamic prosperity was based upon Black as well as Arabic genius.

The children of a stinking Nubian black---God put no light in their complexion!
Arab Poet, late 600AD,

But as Islamic prosperity grew, so did an air of hostility towards many Blacks, Muslims or otherwise. Some Arabs complained about having to work next to Blacks in high positions. After the Prophet's death, even the descendants of Bilal received negative treatment. Arabic writings became laced with anti-Black sentiment. This reaction of Blacks at the time to this can be seen in the writings of a contemporary 9th Century Black scholar in residence at Baghdad by the name of Abu 'Uthman' Amr Ibn Bahr Al-Jahiz. Al-Jahiz, to confront a growing tide of anti-black sentiment in the Muslim world, published a highly controversial work at the time titled, Kitab Fakhr As-Sudan 'Ala Al-Bidan, "The Book of Glory of the Blacks over the Whites." Al-Jahiz in his work contended that even the Prophet Mohammad's father may have been of African lineage.

These new attitudes towards Blacks by Arabs marked the beginning of African enslavement. Though not based solely on race, the Arab Slave Trade did focus heavily upon Africans whom Arabs now saw as inferior to themselves. At first these Arabs raided African villages themselves seeking humans for sale. This not being always successful, they soon enlisted the aid of fellow African Muslims or recently converted Blacks. Wrapping themselves within Islam, these converts rationalized the slavery of their non Muslim brethren as the selling of "unbelievers." At other times the Arabs would demand tribute in the form of human bodies from Africans weary of the fight against Arabic-Islamic incursions.

The Arabs took advantage of regional wars in Africa to buy captives from the victor. They also used the old divide-and-conquer technique. They worked one group against the other and took or killed the best and strongest.
S.E. Anderson, The Black Holocaust for Beginners

Slave Raids and Markets


The Arab slavers raided at nightfall, during the dinner time. Africans who resisted or tried to run were shot and killed. Most adult men were killed as the Arabs favored women and children for sale. The captives then endured a long and torturous march through the African countryside as the slavers searched and gathered more captives. Young men, women, and children were bound by hand and by neck throughout this journey, enduring beatings and rapes along the way. Those who fell sick or dead were left behind. Others remained bound to living captives.



After surviving the torturous ride aboard the Arab slave ships, Africans were taken to the slave markets. Here Muslim men would inspect their intended purchases. Women and young girls were degradingly probed by these men in public or private stalls to test their sexual worth. Those that did not survive their time in these markets were left out to rot. It is said that that hyenas, very numerous in the region, "gorged themselves on human flesh..." Pictured here is a slave market in East Africa.

Concubines and Eunuchs


Pictured here is an African trader (possibly an Egyptian)with two Sudanese slave girls for sale. The African is a Muslim while the girls are not. The Eastern Slave Trade dealt primarily with African women: a ratio of two women for each man. These women and young girls were used by Arabs and other Asians as concubines. Filling the harems of wealthy Arabs, they often bore them a host of children. This sexual abuse of African women would continue for nearly 1200 years.



The Eastern Slave Trade also dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves: Aghas or eunuchs. Used as guards and tutors, these slaves were central to familial peace, protection and order in many wealthy Muslim households. Eunuchs were created by completely amputating the scrotum and penis of 8-to-12-year-old African boys. Hundreds of thousands of young boys may have been subjected to this genital mutilation. Many bled to death during the gory procedure. The survival rate of this process ranged from 1 in 10 to 1 in 30.

Holocaust: The Numbers

Due to the enormous length of the Arab Slave Trade, from 700 to 1911AD, it is impossible to be certain of the numbers of Africans sold in this system. Estimates place the numbers somewhere around 14 million: at least 9.6 million African women and 4.4 African men.

It has been estimated that in all, at least 14 to 20 MILLION African men, women and children died throughout this trade. (Photos and Information courtesy of The Black Holocaust for Beginners by SE Anderson, A Pictorial History of the Slave Trade, Slave Trade of Eastern Africa by Beachy, Slavery in the Arab World by Gordon Murray and Africa in History by Basil Davidson)

Money Gripp wrote:Mindbender, post your TOP 5 SLAVERY list.