₦airaland Forum

basilico:
Arabs were interested in overpopulating their harems. Harem is an Arabic word,another "good" contribution from Muslims to humanity.
You've seen Boko Haram and ISIS do this too. Capturing and selling slaves especially women
Has a lot to do with Islamic teachings if you must know.
Men were castrated to prevent them reproducing the black offspring , they were also sexually abused.
Millions and millions of slaves taken in by Arabs than those who went to be today's black Americans.
BTW Obama your god, is no byproduct of slavery.

+
I know all this.

As per Obama, so what?

Imagine asking how America will fund anything while it's busy spending 2 billion dollars a day to help Israel blow shit up in foreign countries.


How are Republicans always funding wars that benefit no one? Ehn raumdeuter?

DeepSight:
+
Interesting.

The timeline of the Trans Saharan is problematic. We are talking about from about a thousand years ago and much of that was East Africa also. That timeline creates a situation in which it is hard to press the issue because in the first place there were little to no records unlike the Trans Atlantic trade which was meticulously recorded and in the second place institutions didn't or barely existed.

As regards institutionalisation let me make this clear. The Trans Atlantic trade was conducted at an institutional level. States were involved and international corporations were involved. Insurance companies were involved. At the local level kingdoms were involved. So this was a highly organised institutional and industrial scale operation.

You cannot say anywhere near the same thing about the Trans Saharan trade which was more like a rogue pirate operation.

BS on the bold.
the Trans-Saharan trade was the institutional foundation of West African statehood for nearly a millennium.

It was organized and institutional just differently conducted through established trade routes across the Sahara.

It was controlled by states and empires, such like
Mali Empire, Songhai Empire Kanem-Bornu Empire etc. Integrated into Islamic commercial networks
Regulated by laws, taxation, and customs systems
caravans were organized, financed, and protected. Its is not some pirates of the Carribean BS you are implying

DeepSight:
+
Benalvino3 will not advertise his mind to this. Not only were slave owners compensated but the cost was so huge that Britain only paid off the debt in 2015.

If African did not refuse why did Britain bombed Lagos and forced chiefs to sign the treaty?

They do guns buy back too. Americans fought a civil war over it. Britain paid to free the slaves. I don't get you people sometimes.

GracieX3:
Was it Africans refusing to stop slavery?

What is this one writing?

Are you aware that slave owners got reparations in America?

So they paid slave owners to free the slaves. What is your point? Slavery was legal, people were properties.

benalvino3:
If African did not refuse why did Britain bombed Lagos and forced chiefs to sign the treaty?

Sources needed.

Furthermore, not all tribes and villages in West Africa engaged in slave trade. This is one ommission racists always forget. They weren't countries, just differing tribes.

GracieX3:
Sources needed.

Furthermore, not all tribes and villages in West Africa engaged in slave trade. This is one ommission racists always forget. They weren't countries, just differing tribes.

True. Not all tribes. This is your source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_of_Lagos

My question is why people who were forced to end slave trade asking for reparations?

benalvino3:
If African did not refuse why did Britain bombed Lagos and forced chiefs to sign the treaty?

+
What treaty?

They do guns buy back too. Americans fought a civil war over it. Britain paid to free the slaves. I don't get you people sometimes.

+
So you feel it was right for slavers to be compensated but not slaves. Are you aware that Britain only finished paying in 2015?

benalvino3:
BS on the bold.
the Trans-Saharan trade was the institutional foundation of West African statehood for nearly a millennium.

It was organized and institutional just differently conducted through established trade routes across the Sahara.

It was controlled by states and empires, such like
Mali Empire, Songhai Empire Kanem-Bornu Empire etc. Integrated into Islamic commercial networks
Regulated by laws, taxation, and customs systems
caravans were organized, financed, and protected. Its is not some pirates of the Carribean BS you are implying

+
Pls show me the corporation's involved. The lists and records of slaves and slavers, the records of transactions. The state to state records of diplomacy governing the trade. The records are simply not there or at worst so barely that you can never compare such records to that of the Trans Atlantic and thus you can never say that the institutional involvement was comparable. This is the point.

He is the FBI. I think he should be able to get to the bottom of this with the help of.....oh wait, he fired all the competent people.

I can almost hear them chanting “but Hilary’s emails”

And the whole time it was nothing remotely close to any of this.

My mind has been shutting down everyday I come here and see their putrid posts.

IjeBos:
🤣🤣🤣🤣

My mind nearly shut down when he said Trump only meant he wouldn't start "new wars" and Iran wasn't a new war since we've been at war with them for 47 years (4 of which Trump was President and 8 of which Reagan was selling them arms).

I really didn't think there were real people alive that swallowed that nonsense. And even worse would repeat it in public. But here is Raumdeuter proving why Trump loves the uneducated.

Hillary called them out perfectly years back. Deplorables.

DeepSight:
+
What treaty?


+
So you feel it was right for slavers to be compensated but not slaves. Are you aware that Britain only finished paying in 2015?

What's right is paying to free the slaves. When abolition is forced without compromise, it can lead to massive violence. I already mentioned the American Civil War. Britain chose to pay to end slavery quickly and avoid that scale of destruction.

Why do you have problem with that?

W

benalvino3:
If African did not refuse why did Britain bombed Lagos and forced chiefs to sign the treaty?

They do guns buy back too. Americans fought a civil war over it. Britain paid to free the slaves. I don't get you people sometimes.

Should Africans whose ancestors were enslaved pay the British for stopping the trade. If it wasn't stopped we could still be slaves.
Should Arabs pay Africans.
Or have we moved on,no need to dwell on the past injusticea which will never reoccur

BTW, All this is in jest.

DeepSight:
+
Pls show me the corporation's involved. The lists and records of slaves and slavers, the records of transactions. The state to state records of diplomacy governing the trade. The records are simply not there or at worst so barely that you can never compare such records to that of the Trans Atlantic and thus you can never say that the institutional involvement was comparable. This is the point.

You’re confusing lack of surviving documentation with lack of institutional structure.

W. African and trans-Saharan systems did not produce or preserve records in the same volume or format as European Atlantic systems, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t state organized.
Mali and Songhai empires taxed trade, regulated routes, and controlled commerce across the Sahara. That is institutional involvement even if it wasn’t recorded through corporations, insurance contracts, and shipping manifests like the trans-Atlantic system.

basilico:
W

Should Africans whose ancestors were enslaved pay the British for stopping the trade. If it wasn't stopped we could still be slaves.
Should Arabs pay Africans.
Or have we moved on,no need to dwell on the past injusticea which will never reoccur

BTW, All this is in jest.

Africa problems too much.

benalvino3:
What's right is paying to free the slaves. When abolition is forced without compromise, it can lead to massive violence. I already mentioned the American Civil War. Britain chose to pay to end slavery quickly and avoid that scale of destruction.

Why do you have problem with that?

+
Once you recognise something as barbaric and inhuman you should not compensate for it. And if you do, you should also compensate the victims through whose blood and sweat unspeakable wealth was derived for you. That is what is fair.

basilico:
W

Should Africans whose ancestors were enslaved pay the British for stopping the trade. If it wasn't stopped we could still be slaves.
Should Arabs pay Africans.
Or have we moved on,no need to dwell on the past injusticea which will never reoccur

BTW, All this is in jest.

+
The only reason I have an issue with reparations is that it will be far too complex and well nigh impossible to determine who should get what.

benalvino3:
You’re confusing lack of surviving documentation with lack of institutional structure.

W. African and trans-Saharan systems did not produce or preserve records in the same volume or format as European Atlantic systems, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t state organized.
Mali and Songhai empires taxed trade, regulated routes, and controlled commerce across the Sahara. That is institutional involvement even if it wasn’t recorded through corporations, insurance contracts, and shipping manifests like the trans-Atlantic system.

+
I told you from the onset that part of the reason is records. Didn't you get that. I said that is part of the reason that people today will focus on the Trans Atlantic.

I also mentioned timeline.

A thousand years ago was a different universe. The Trans Atlantic is closer in time and in civilizational continuity.

DeepSight:
+
Once you recognise something as barbaric and inhuman you should not compensate for it. And if you do, you should also compensate the victims through whose blood and sweat unspeakable wealth was derived for you. That is what is fair.

Oga, why should brits fight and kill themselves when they can settle with cash? That's common sense.

The Americans fought and killed themselves.

benalvino3:
Oga, why should brits fight and kill themselves when they can settle with cash? That's common sense.

The Americans fought and killed themselves.

+
Not a problem, I mentioned a second part. If you settle the oppressors with cash, you should also settle the victims. That would be consistent with logic since you abolished it on the recognition of its barbarism and inhumanity and also for the fact that you profited massively from their blood and sweat.

DeepSight:
+
The only reason I have an issue with reparations is that it will be far too complex and well nigh impossible to determine who should get what.

All the aids the US has been given were all looted. They should pay reparations, especially Ghana and Nigeria.

benalvino3:
All the aids the US has been given were all looted. They should pay reparations

+
This is an absurd argument.

In the first place it's a different matter.

In the second place neo colonialism extracts far more than any aid the west gives or has ever given. Just go and see what France has been taking from Francophone West Africa till date.

In the third place I still have to ask who appointed you lawyer for the West. Why are you fighting tooth and nail to argue their case. Why can't you at least argue a balanced case on both sides?

HN.

Kuuuuuuuuu. . . . . . .

DeepSight:
+
This is an absurd argument.

In the first place it's a different matter.

In the second place neo colonialism extracts far more than any aid the west gives or has ever given. Just go and see what France has been taking from Francophone West Africa till date.

In the third place I still have to ask who appointed you lawyer for the West. Why are you fighting tooth and nail to argue their case. Why can't you at least argue a balanced case on both sides?

HN.

Kuuuuuuuuu. . . . . . .

There is nothing absurd in what I said. Even when the government allocates cash for a program, it is looted. The level of corruption is too much.

benalvino3:
There is nothing absurd in what I said. Even when the government allocates cash for a program, it is looted. The level of corruption is too much.

.
+
I agree with that and it is a fact. My question is why can you only argue for your masters. Why can't you apportion blame in a balanced way?

We all know the level of corruption and manipulation the west exercises up till today in Africa. Why do you defend them one hundred per cent and only accuse us? Are you being paid, HN?

benalvino3:
All the aids the US has been given were all looted. They should pay reparations, especially Ghana and Nigeria.

I didn't want to bring that up . America has given so much to blacks within it and to every African country.
African leaders after looting the aid blame slave trade. Like that Ghanian President expecting a windfall of cash, debt write-off or investment spending.

Since 1964 War on Poverty between $20-25 Trillion has been poured into American welfare programs of which blacks are disproportionately represented. .

The issue has to do with guilt shaming.

DeepSight:
.
+
I agree with that and it is a fact. My question is why can you only argue for your masters. Why can't you apportion blame in a balanced way?

We all know the level of corruption and manipulation the west exercises up till today in Africa. Why do you defend them one hundred per cent and only accuse us? Are you being paid, HN?

What I am doing is counter argument to the one sider UN resolution our brothers here who love the US vs THEM (white people) are pushing.

My argument is slavery shouldn't be compartmentalize, it should be condemned and all involved should take responsibility. Ghana is pointing fingers on mainly the US and UK while acting like they were not part of it as well as the Arabs.

bayelsaowei:
Slavery in its entirety isn’t acceptable. So if my body tells me to highlight that which was perpetrated by the white Europeans, why does it bother you?


Tomorrow I can and will focus on that being perpetrated by Arabs.

How does this quote sound to you? 👆👆👆

Now compare that with this

bayelsaowei:
Your opinion is shaky.

When you see something condemnable, you condemn it.

Not make floating comments like “I think”.

He saw something condemnable but he is waiting for tomorrow

basilico:
I didn't want to bring that up . America has given so much to blacks within it and to every African country.
African leaders after looting the aid blame slave trade. Like that Ghanian President expecting a windfall of cash, debt write-off or investment spending.

Since 1964 War on Poverty between $20-25 Trillion has been poured into welfare programs of which blacks are disproportionately represented.

We Africans hate to hear the truth

benalvino3:
What I am doing is counter argument to the one sider UN resolution our brothers here who love the US vs THEM (white people) are pushing.

My argument is slavery shouldn't be compartmentalize, it should be condemned and all involved should take responsibility. Ghana is pointing fingers on mainly the US and UK while acting like they were not part of it as well as the Arabs.



How does this quote sound to you? 👆👆👆

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania

They ended slavery in 1981 but indentured slaves still work on the Arab estates. The criminalization of owning slaves was signed by the president in 2007.

basilico:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania

They ended slavery in 1981 but indentured slaves still work on the Arab estates. The criminalization of owning slaves was signed by the president in 2007.

The British end of slavery was followed by their colonial rule. So they ended one problem then started another.

benalvino3:
What I am doing is counter argument to the one sider UN resolution our brothers here who love the US vs THEM (white people) are pushing.

My argument is slavery shouldn't be compartmentalize, it should be condemned and all involved should take responsibility. Ghana is pointing fingers on mainly the US and UK while acting like they were not part of it as well as the Arabs.



How does this quote sound to you? 👆👆👆

Now compare that with this



He saw something condemnable but he is waiting for tomorrow

You’ve intentionally decided to lie by saying I haven’t condemned slavery in its entirety. See my previous post to Raumdeuter.

I have chosen to speak about the transatlantic slavery system as a case in point and it got you and other vassals triggered.

It is either you guys are being paid to defend nonsense or as usual you’re still slaves in real time to the white folks.

You heap all the blame’s on your ancestors and absolve those who demanded for slaves and sustained one of the most sophisticated slave system in human history.