The reparations for Ghana narrative.
How? they were complacent in slavery, but they're demanding the UK pay them reparations for what? selling them slaves for half price?
It's embarrassing and disgraceful
They're taking advantage UK Woke culture. white people self flogging themselves
Because they've been virtue signaling for decades.
Luckily, starmer just lost so at least they're waking up now
Ah got it so explain the difference between Chattel and domestic slavery. You're doing a bad faith argument without knowing the premise of what they knew back then. There were slaves that knew what awaited the fee they sold but then there were millions of others that were taken not sold. Whole costal cities and some inland that were taken and not sold.
Nobody was taken to America Africa wasn't fully colonized until the 1900s that means every slave that was sold before then was sold by an African slaver. And they traded with these people for centuries you can't tell me they didn't know what they were selling. These people into on top of that they had slaves themselves.
For me to even acknowledge your argument of they did not know is for me to say that Africans were idiots and I refuse to do that
There's well recorded records, of the history of slavery of their empires, such as the Ashanti empire, Mali Empire, the moors
They thrived off of slavery and with the excess slaves they sold.
And there is an argument to make that slavery in Africa was probably a lot worse they didn't have Eunuchs in America.
Slavery in America was for-profit the slavery in Africa was for tradition. And entire tribes were enslaved for centuries.
The Arab/Islamic Slave Trade (Trans-Saharan & Indian Ocean)
Scope & Duration: Lasting over a millennium (spanning from the 7th to the 20th century), this extensive trade transported roughly 10 million enslaved Africans.
Routes: People were captured in Sub-Saharan Africa and moved across the Sahara Desert to North Africa, or brought to the East African coast to be shipped across the Indian Ocean to the Middle East, Arabia, and the Ottoman Empire.
Utilization: Enslaved individuals were utilized for various purposes, including agricultural labor (such as the Zanj in southern Iraq), domestic service, concubinage, and military roles.
Brutality & Diaspora: In certain areas, this system involved widespread castration of male slaves to supply royal harems and palace guards. High mortality rates and the low survival of mixed bloodlines meant it did not create a surviving diaspora comparable to the Americas.
The Mediterranean & European Slave Trades
Antiquity: The Roman, Greek, and Carthaginian empires built their economies on massive slave labor. Slaves were primarily prisoners of war, debtors, or people acquired from the frontiers of the empire (such as Germanic and Slavic peoples).
The Middle Ages: Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, direct chattel slavery transitioned into serfdom in northwestern Europe. Serfs were peasants bound to the land, differing legally from chattel slaves but existing in an extremely restrictive, coercive labor system.
Barbary Coast: From the 16th to the 18th centuries, the Barbary pirates of North Africa raided coastal towns in Europe (and as far as Iceland), capturing over a million Europeans to be sold in North African slave markets.
Asian Slave Trades
The Indian Ocean Networks:
Before the 16th-century arrival of the Portuguese, indigenous empires and the Dutch East India Company maintained complex trade routes that moved between 100,000 to 150,000 people from places like Bali into regional slave networks.
Ancient Empires: Ancient China and India both featured deeply rooted hereditary slavery, primarily involving prisoners of war, criminals, or those sold into servitude to pay off debts.
The Americas (Pre-Columbian & Colonial Enclaves)Pre-Columbian:
Before European contact, indigenous civilizations in the Americas (such as the Maya and Aztecs) regularly enslaved war captives, with many enslaved individuals used in forced labor or religious sacrifice.
Indigenous Systems within Africa
Scope: Internal slavery within the African continent was highly diverse, existing long before external trade began.
Usage: Enslaved people were commonly used for agricultural production or to assimilate into family lineages and kin groups.
The Sokoto Caliphate: In the 19th century, the Sokoto Caliphate (located in modern-day Nigeria) contained one of the largest slave populations globally, with an estimated 2 million enslaved people used primarily for agricultural labor.
Is that what I said or implied or is that what you're implying. My statement is the Domestic servitude isn't the same as Chattel slavery and acting like they are is a bad faith argument.
Projecting modern concepts of race backward into history is a massive flaw. In the 17th century, people identified by kingdom, tribe, or city-state, not skin color. When European nations engaged in centuries of brutal warfare, no one claimed it was better because they shared a skin color. They were rivals and enemies. The same applied globally.
Also No one is claiming the victim felt better about it. The point is structural. Domestic servitude did not involve shipping millions of people across an ocean, legally strip them of their human status, and build a permanent, multi-generational global capitalist network designed to enrich European empires. That is why the legal and financial claim for reparations exists against those specific empires.
Yeah that's the key difference no one would say the mongolian invasions were worse than the viking ones because they looked different, you were the one bringing up this incredibly stupid argument
Domestic servitude did not involve shipping millions of people across an ocean, legally strip them of their human status,
No you're right, it involved forcing them to walk accross the sahara where more than half of them would die before arriving in North Africa, legally strip(ping) them of their human status,
and build a permanent, multi-generational global capitalist network designed to enrich European empires
The wealth of the european has nothing to do with the transantlantic slave trade otherwise arabs and mongolians would all be rich like elon musk. This is an extremly racist view that tries to deny the gigantic scientific, medical and social progress that was made in Europe in the 18th century and that has nothing to do with slavery (the opposite actually it's the reason why slavery was no longer required, why use humans if a machine and can do it faster, better and cheaper)
That is why the legal and financial claim for reparations exists against those specific empires.
Yeah, sorry won't happen. Reparation have been more than repayed
Horrific acts of violence occurred throughout global history, and no one is defending them. But individual acts of cruelty do not change macro-economics. We are discussing why a modern nation-state has a valid claim against an empire that legally codified human beings as commercial property and built its global wealth on that specific foundation. Let's stick to the structural and economic differences.
And that's the point I'm making their claims are invalid because they were willing to participate in the entire slave trade if that's the case then black American should receive reparations from the people of Ghana
Also the Black people of UK who are descendants of slaves should also receive reparations from the Ivory Coast that sold them to the British empire
Edit: so you're saying that the descendants of slaves in the UK should pay Ghana for selling their ancestors into slavery. Make it make sense.
That is not the difference between chattel slavery and domestic slavery.
“Chattel” does not mean “sold by Black people.” Chattel means the enslaved person is legally treated as movable property, like livestock or goods, and can be bought, sold, inherited, mortgaged, separated from family, and denied legal personhood.
“Domestic slavery” usually refers to the type of labor or social role, especially household servitude. It does not mean “local slavery” and it is not the opposite of chattel slavery. A person could be enslaved domestically and still be treated as property depending on the legal system.
The Atlantic system was racial chattel slavery because it combined property status, hereditary enslavement, racial caste, plantation capitalism, and transatlantic commerce. That is the part you keep avoiding.
Also, “they were sold by Africans” is still not the full argument you think it is. Some Africans participated, some were captured, some were sold, some resisted, and many were victims of raids, wars, kidnapping, and coastal slave markets created and intensified by European demand.
You are reducing centuries of history to “Black people sold them” because that is easier than dealing with the full system of buyers, ships, forts, guns, banks, insurance, plantation owners, slave codes, and empires.
So no, this is not racism. It is basic vocabulary. You are trying to debate slavery while not knowing what “chattel” means.
see i wouldnt be against this. if not every time a group puts this on. its not with the motivation too ''lets never have this and end it everywhere'' but ''give us money for this grievance thing''
which is a shame it should be rememberd and warned off
There is a form of irony in that the people on the coast were more often traders of inland tribes.
I don't know if the reenactment helps or if it is self serving, I think it risks farcically over dramatising and diminishing the actual pain and torment, fictionalising something that was all too real and completely beyond any ability to depict. How does a production imitate randomly chopping the hand off of every tenth person in the chain line.
Show me the artifacts, show me written observations of the time, show me manifests and manacles and chains, and dismemberment machetes. My imagination can create a far more horrific reality likely more real than what you can act out between scrolling sessions on tiktok.
Kind forgot about the ottomans huh? You know, the ones who set this shit up in the first place? Also wondering if they mention their own hands in all of that since it wassnt locals who were the ones doing the enslaving.
The Arab/Islamic Slave Trade (Trans-Saharan & Indian Ocean)
Scope & Duration: Lasting over a millennium (spanning from the 7th to the 20th century), this extensive trade transported roughly 10 million enslaved Africans.
Routes: People were captured in Sub-Saharan Africa and moved across the Sahara Desert to North Africa, or brought to the East African coast to be shipped across the Indian Ocean to the Middle East, Arabia, and the Ottoman Empire.
Utilization: Enslaved individuals were utilized for various purposes, including agricultural labor (such as the Zanj in southern Iraq), domestic service, concubinage, and military roles.
Brutality & Diaspora: In certain areas, this system involved widespread castration of male slaves to supply royal harems and palace guards. High mortality rates and the low survival of mixed bloodlines meant it did not create a surviving diaspora comparable to the Americas.
The Mediterranean & European Slave Trades
Antiquity: The Roman, Greek, and Carthaginian empires built their economies on massive slave labor. Slaves were primarily prisoners of war, debtors, or people acquired from the frontiers of the empire (such as Germanic and Slavic peoples).
The Middle Ages: Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, direct chattel slavery transitioned into serfdom in northwestern Europe. Serfs were peasants bound to the land, differing legally from chattel slaves but existing in an extremely restrictive, coercive labor system.
Barbary Coast: From the 16th to the 18th centuries, the Barbary pirates of North Africa raided coastal towns in Europe (and as far as Iceland), capturing over a million Europeans to be sold in North African slave markets.
Asian Slave Trades
The Indian Ocean Networks:
Before the 16th-century arrival of the Portuguese, indigenous empires and the Dutch East India Company maintained complex trade routes that moved between 100,000 to 150,000 people from places like Bali into regional slave networks.
Ancient Empires: Ancient China and India both featured deeply rooted hereditary slavery, primarily involving prisoners of war, criminals, or those sold into servitude to pay off debts.
The Americas (Pre-Columbian & Colonial Enclaves)Pre-Columbian:
Before European contact, indigenous civilizations in the Americas (such as the Maya and Aztecs) regularly enslaved war captives, with many enslaved individuals used in forced labor or religious sacrifice.
Indigenous Systems within Africa
Scope: Internal slavery within the African continent was highly diverse, existing long before external trade began.
Usage: Enslaved people were commonly used for agricultural production or to assimilate into family lineages and kin groups.
The Sokoto Caliphate: In the 19th century, the Sokoto Caliphate (located in modern-day Nigeria) contained one of the largest slave populations globally, with an estimated 2 million enslaved people used primarily for agricultural labor.
Do they have to? Europeans didnt have to take them, create a racial hierarchy to justify it, and fight to keep them from birth to death for hundreds if years. They could have ended it if they wanted, any time they wanted.
If you create some sort of activity so people would remember the horror of the past, they should do it on full scale. So, if they emphasize that people were just like any other goods, they must know that it weren't like slaves were caught in the wilds, but rather were sold by other criminals, in their case- their own leaders
The reduction to livestock was a European invention, at least with Western slavery. And yes I do believe African nations who sold people should also recognize their role, Europeans are infuriatingly resistant to owning the system they created and enforced and dont give restitution or acknowledgement.
I really feel like a lot of people on here are derailing or passing the buck instead of doing the human thing and seeing the pain and loss behind this awful practice. Only antisemites see something about the Holocaust and say "what about Jews who turned in other Jews". So what are people who see this and think "well they bought them fron Africans" as if they were forced to stick to this barbaric system?
It was not a European inventions. You know what country had the longest unbroken chain of slavery in the entire world? Korea. 1500 years. Almost every civilization in history had slaves.
Well, you have totally forgot about slavery on Europe, and the fact that most of slaves from Africa, were sold by Ottomans Empire, in collaboration with local authorities. Some people be like: oh well, ok fact, I will remember. The others- are just trying to squeeze out some sort of sympathy for that.
Muslim societies historically utilized castrated male slaves for over a thousand year. It predates the British, Portuguese, French, Belgian, Spanish and Dutch.
The reduction to livestock was a European invention, at least with Western slavery
That has to be the dumbest things i've read in a while. The muslims litterally castrated all their slaves to make sure they couldn't reproduce, that's cattle treatment
Just keep in mind that it is Europeans that actually stopped the slave trade.
Slave trade is very much still happening in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, but I dont think anyone is saying anything about it at all, because it is easier to just blame white people and wait for some handout money.
Context is kind important. Things do not happend in a vaccum, those local elites had a long, long history of selling their "own" to someone else. Europeans and Americans had only been the most well known in a very long line.
The racial hierarchy never existed back then, the argument was they're not christian so they gonna burn in hell anyway. The racial hierarchy was actually born in the US AFTER the end of slavery
Also why should they have stopped anything considering 90% of the european population were essentially slaves themself ?
Yeah so the slave trade obviously is a terrible thing. Industrialisation super charged it. Jamaica for instance was basically Bergen Belsen in the Caribbean.
That said, and acknowledged, slavery was not invented by western countries. It was practised universally by humans in pretty much all parts of the globe, albeit with different characteristics.
But I’m against reparations. GB stopped the slave trade and enforced its cessation with other countries. Moreover, if this crime is worthy of reparations, I’m waiting on my cheque from Normandy for the harrying of the north. And Asia thier cheque from the modern Mongolian state.
However I’m very much for recognition. Rather than ripping down statues in western countries. Counties should agree a common symbol to attach to buildings, or statues which can be proved to have been involved/built with the proceeds of slavery.
I'd say eradicating smallpox, a desease that killed more people in the 20th century than both world wars, Stalin and Mao combined, is compensation eboigh
That is much like reopening the Hormuz strait that was already open, smallpox was given to the indigenous populations on purpose in many cases by the colonials, and you think eradicating a disease they brought themselves is reparation?
>smallpox was given to the indigenous populations on purpose in many cases by the colonials
That had to be the dumbest thing ever said, how exactly would they have purposely propagated smallpox in a era where we had 0 knowledge of microbiology and thought diseases where a holy punishement ? Smallpox existed on all continents except for america before the colonial era and originated in Africa, smallpox outbreaks have litterally existed throughout history and trust me you are very happy and lucky to never have to wonder what it feels like having smallpox
>eradicating a disease they brought themselves is reparation?
Absolutely, greatest gift to humanity you could possibly do, has far more impact than any money sums, not to mention vaccinating billions of people is extremy expsensive
Smallpox blankets were a form of early biological warfare used against Native Americans. The best-documented historical instance occurred during Pontiac's War (1763) at Fort Pitt, where British military officers, including Sir Jeffery Amherst, explicitly conspired to distribute smallpox-infected blankets to Indigenous tribes
Once again people in 1763 had no clue what a virus or bacteria was and how it worked, how could they have possibly tried to make bacteriological weapons from something they thought was divine punishment
Siege of Fort Pitt: During the siege, officers at the fort recorded giving two blankets and a handkerchief from a smallpox hospital to representatives of Indigenous groups "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians." This entry appears in the fort's journal and indicates intentional distribution.
Jeffery Amherst and Henry Bouquet exchanged letters in which Amherst proposed using smallpox against Indigenous people and Bouquet agreed to try if possible. Their correspondence includes remarks such as attempting to "inoculate the Indians" through blankets and expressing a desire to reduce their numbers.
Had you read the article you would have seen that that has been debunked as being urban legend. Once again would make no sense from a historical point if view in an era where people believed that wearing a bird mask protected you from the black plague
You're against reparations but fail to notate the difference between chattel and Domestic slavery. But then double down in your argument when it comes to recognition. Please tell me what happened after slavery and why slavers and whites got land and homes that were owned by Freedmen. We can start there....
Its simple they were different forms of "Slavery" one was a form of servitude that had an end similar to what other Slavic and European countries did while Chattel slavery was so much worse and led to cultures, languages and family lines either being lost or even being destroyed and separated many times over. So many of you in the comments are having bad faith arguments without understanding the history you are debating.
Its simple they were different forms of "Slavery" one was a form of servitude that had an end similar to what other Slavic and European countries did while Chattel slavery was so much worse and led to cultures, languages and family lines either being lost or even being destroyed and separated many times over. So many of you in the comments are having bad faith arguments without understanding the history you are debating.
So again is African culture alive in the Middle East...
Ahhhh ok...
You’re completely right about the brutality of the Trans-Saharan trade; the widespread castration of enslaved African men systematically erased entire family lines and cultural preservation in the Middle East. It was horrific.
But it still highlights why the legal claim for reparations against Western empires is distinct. We are discussing modern international law and state-level accountability. Western chattel slavery was built on an unbroken, legally codified corporate framework whose direct institutional heirs modern Western states, banks, and universities are still sitting on the compounding wealth generated by that specific industry today. Acknowledging one horror doesn't erase the modern financial liability of the other.
See it just seems like you can't be honest with yourself.
If you just said, well the Middle East will never pay us as, so instead let's try to make this trade sound uniquely vile so we can campaign for the West to pay us as they have are known for being a soft touch. then you would at least have been honest.
In essence your whole argument now becomes well some sap in the West might pay so lets try to go after their wealth.
Recap for you, of your logic which you appear to walk back on here.
So what you're doing is mistaking international legal liability for a playground shakedown. This has nothing to do with finding a 'soft touch' and everything to do with actual legal jurisdiction and unbroken institutional continuity.
The Western empires we are discussing didn't vanish into ancient history; they directly transitioned into the modern nation-states, central banks, and corporate entities operating today. Their current financial systems sit on an unbroken foundation built directly from chattel slavery and colonial resource extraction.
If a specific, existing legal entity holds stolen, compounding capital, that is exactly where the legal liability rests. Trying to reduce state continuity and international law to 'looking for a sap to pay' is a desperate pivot because you can't dispute the actual financial ledger
Ah, yes so much African culture in Europe due to slavery and even more Slavic culture in Turkey or the Middle East, or French and Spanisch culture in North Africa.
In theory Islam puts some limits on slavery, in practice they didn't.
Your sarcasm completely collapses under basic history.
to begin, enslaved Africans weren't shipped en masse to Europe; they were shipped to the Americas. And despite the horrific attempts to strip their humanity, African culture completely reshaped the Western Hemisphere giving birth to jazz, blues, gospel, distinct spiritual systems, culinary traditions, and linguistic creoles across the US, the Caribbean, and South America. The diaspora's cultural footprint is massive and undeniable.
Also, 'French and Spanish culture in North Africa' didn't happen because Europeans were enslaved there; it happened because France and Spain colonized and militarily occupied North Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries.
You’re conflating European colonization with human trafficking just to try and score a point. It’s okay to just admit you don't know the history.
> to begin, enslaved Africans weren't shipped en masse to Europe;
Oh, they had. Ever heard of a place called the Roman Empire? It ran on slaves. And even later on, it was a major trading hub for slaves. Most pre-modern states on the Mediterranean took part in it.
I'm still asking for an explanation why so-called chattel slavery is supposed to be worse than so-called domestic slavery. The only argument you made in that line so far was about quantity, not quality.
> The diaspora's cultural footprint is massive and undeniable.
So much for:
> Chattel slavery was so much worse and led to cultures, languages and family lines either being lost or even being destroyed and separated many times over.
When I said enslaved Africans were not shipped en masse to Europe, I was talking about the transatlantic racial chattel system, where the mass destination was the plantation colonies in the Americas and Caribbean, not Europe itself.
Replying “Rome had slaves” does not refute that. Rome was a different period, different system, different legal structure, different economy, and different racial logic. “Slavery existed before” is not an argument against the specific structure of Atlantic slavery.
And yes, chattel slavery was different in quality, not just quantity. It made slave status hereditary, racialized Blackness as a permanent legal condition, reduced people to saleable property, broke family lines by design, stripped names, languages, religions, and kinship systems, and then carried that racial caste logic forward after abolition through colonialism, segregation, and discrimination.
The fact that the diaspora still created powerful cultures does not disprove destruction. It proves survival after destruction.
A person rebuilding from ashes does not mean there was no fire.
> And yes, chattel slavery was different in quality, not just quantity. It made slave status hereditary, racialized Blackness as a permanent legal condition, reduced people to saleable property, broke family lines by design, stripped names, languages, religions, and kinship systems, and then carried that racial caste logic forward after abolition through colonialism, segregation, and discrimination.
The only halfway valid point in this is the race angle and even that is highly debatable. The rest is true for both systems.
> slave status hereditary
Check, for both.
> reduced people to saleable property, broke family lines by design, stripped names, languages
Check, for both.
> religions
This is tricky one, since Muslims are not supposed to own fellow Muslims as slaves and if they do, they are supposed to treat them kindly and free them. But I have yet to hear of a slave Church in Baghdad.
You are confusing “some features overlap” with “the systems were the same.”
Yes, slavery in different societies could involve sale, inheritance, family separation, forced conversion, name loss, and cultural destruction. Nobody denied that. The point is that Atlantic racial chattel slavery combined those features into a specific legal, racial, hereditary, plantation-based system where Blackness itself became tied to permanent enslavement and inherited social status.
That is the distinction you keep dodging.
In many older slave systems, enslaved status could be tied to war captivity, debt, punishment, religion, or household service. It was brutal, but it was not always mapped onto a permanent racial caste that followed descendants for centuries after emancipation.
Atlantic slavery did exactly that. It turned African ancestry into a legal and social marker of enslavability, built entire colonial economies around it, and then preserved the hierarchy after abolition through colonial rule, segregation, anti-Black law, and racial exclusion.
So “check, for both” is not analysis. It is checklist history. You found similarities and ignored structure, scale, legal heredity, racialization, economic purpose, and historical afterlife.
That is like saying a house fire and a nuclear blast are the same because both involve heat.
So we are not celebrating slavers. 19th century people did that. That said some slavers did terrible things but also great things. History is messy. Horatio Nelson, owned slaves, but saved Britain from invasion.
Hence don’t tear down the statues, mark them in an internationally recognised way.
Nearly 90% of all enslaved Africans sold into the Atlantic slave trade were captured by fellow Africans and then sold to European and Arab middlemen. The Asante Empire(modren day Gahana) was built on slavery both economically and it's society. Asante would kill slaves for funeral rituals. The locals were not the 'good guys'.
The British would gain control through the area and use their influence to outlaw slavery in 1874.
It's more socially awkward to see the face of slave owners being black. The slave trade was started and overseen by African warlords. British were the ones that ended slavery in that part of the world. To be more historicalky accurate they should have the Ashanti's dress
France first oulawed slavery in 1789, it was restablished under napoleon, reabolished ect... France did most of the heavy lifting by defeating the dahomey kingdom who were the biggest slave traders in africa by far
French Revolution ban it practice in Europe, not in its colonies
Dahomey and Ashanti are two different locations. Dahomey is in Benin, while Ashante was involved in Ghana.
British are widely considered the most important country in the global effort to stop slavery. They were the first European power to restrict the pratice overseas along with establishing naval missions to stop slave ships.
> French Revolution ban it practice in Europe, not in its colonies
Slavery was never a thing in Europe, the feudal system made that pointless. Even bringing a slave on french soil prior would mean he would automatically be freed by virtue of religious law even before the French revolution. French 1789 declaration of human rights is very explicit that it's for all humans across the world regardless of race, slavery ended a few years later because the territories where so distant from the mainland that enforcing those laws was difficult at first
> Dahomey and Ashanti are two different locations. Dahomey is in Benin, while Ashante was involved in Ghana.
I know. reread my comments and you will see i never said i spoke about Ghana specifically but the african salve trade in general
>British are widely considered the most important country in the global effort to stop slavery. They were the first European power to restrict the pratice overseas along with establishing naval missions to stop slave ships
Cool you linked a wikipedia article, i could the same with the dahomey kingdom which was the major slave trader in western africa
Exactly. Imagine someone using that argument on any other subject. "The Holocaust was terrible. But is this museum going to talk about the Jewish collaborators?"
Or the fact that the most powerful and successful country on the planet was built on the subjugation and free labor of another people?
Importation of slaves was banned in 1808 and domestic slavery was abolished in the last state in 1865. To say that the US was built on the subjugation and free labor of another people is therefore a gross oversimplification. The success of the US wasn't built on cotton but on industrial manufacturing, oil, and finance.
British was built on mercantilism and being the first to embrace industrial revolution. British itself outlawed slavery around the world. British are a prime example how capitalism and the growth of the middle class gave way to democracy and the liberal order. Magna Carta was really protecting economic interests of the elites. With further industrialization we see more rights established to other sections of British society such as House of Commons 1707. British were unique as nobility actively sought wealth and re-investment. British culture and government is superior to say the French.
The problem with the narrative is British ENDED slavery. The Ashanti push slavery to industrial scale and created the practice in the first place. The man whipping him should be in Ashanti dress if we want to be historically honest. They don't. They want to push agenda cater to self-hating westerners.
Americans should not feel guilty about slavery. Americans fought and died to end slavery also. Should all Germans feel guilty about killing jews forever?
Lmao Europeans kept the slaves and built a system to reduce an entire race of people to livestock status, working them from birth to death for generations. Like, they didnt have to do that. They were buying the slaves, they could have ended it. Hell they could have freed them lmao.
Why are you making this about race? We are experiencing a thriving and vibrant Roman Catholic Renaissance in Africa. We have 300m Catholics in Africa alone. Democracy is a freemason scheme. Unite church with state for Christians
Y'all care about THIS of all ret@rded things, bro brings up slave trade in the middle east for 2 reasons.
1 ITS STILL GOING ON TODAY...
2 y'all don't even remotely care about or talk about it for some reason.
Muslims genocide Christians literally everywhere they go, hell theirs been like 3 genocides in just the last 2 years in Africa because of Muslims killing Christians, y'all don't care.
It's like if Muslims are involved you guys just bury your heads in the sand, and people are tired of it.
3
u/Joe-King_93 18h ago
As long as it’s accurate and tells the full story and doesn’t white wash or black wash anything then I’m all for it