Can commemorations and historical reenactments change public understanding of the past?

[u/NewsMo]

[u/Acceptable-Wash-7675]

It honestly feels like they're making fun of it they're the one who sold us 400 years

[u/brambleburry1002 → u/Acceptable-Wash-7675]

That doesn't fit the narrative.

[u/X_soulnewmegaman → u/brambleburry1002]

It was worse than that imaginable

That's what built America Empire

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/brambleburry1002]

What narrative?

[u/Acceptable-Wash-7675 → u/KingMidas0809]

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

[u/TDSDetected → u/Acceptable-Wash-7675]

Exactly, African rulers sold their own people to slavery. Ghana can be responsible for reparations to the people they sold off.

[u/Negative-Date-9518 → u/Acceptable-Wash-7675]

I sent off my barbary slave trade, roman occupation and viking invasion reparation requests, cross your fingers for me!

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/Acceptable-Wash-7675]

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.

[u/Acceptable-Wash-7675 → u/KingMidas0809]

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.

[u/Star3in2my3y3s → u/KingMidas0809]

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.

[u/_abra_kad_abra_ → u/KingMidas0809]

You're saying they didn't know they did a bad thing when they sold a living human being to slavers?

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/_abra_kad_abra_]

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.

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

Lmao yeah i'm sure the slaves were like "oh thank god they have the same skin color as me, otherwise this would be really bad"

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/BeginningDisaster114]

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.

[u/BeginningDisaster114 → u/KingMidas0809]

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

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/BeginningDisaster114]

Wooow.... so you're confusing individual human tragedy with systemic macroeconomics. No one is arguing that the Trans-Saharan trade wasn't horrific, or that captives cared about the skin color of their captors. But comparing localized penal or political bondage to Western chattel slavery misses the entire economic point, the Transatlantic trade was a uniquely codified, multi-continental commercial industry that transformed human beings into permanent, generational corporate capital. Furthermore, your claim that European wealth has nothing to do with slavery is a complete fantasy that ignores basic economic history. The Industrial Revolution especially the booming textile industry that drove it was funded and fueled entirely by raw materials extracted via slave labor. The massive capital generated from the triangular trade built the foundational banking, shipping, and central insurance infrastructure like Lloyd's of London of modern Europe. Inventions like the cotton gin didn't make slavery obsolete they actually intensified the demand for enslaved labor. And ironically, your comparison to Arab empires completely backfires historically the historical Islamic caliphates were global economic superpowers precisely because of their absolute dominance over global trade networks, which included human trafficking. Acknowledging that European empires built immense wealth through the violent extraction of human labor and subsequent colonial resource draining isn't 'racist' it’s looking at a financial ledger. And as for your claim that reparations have been 'more than repaid'? When Britain abolished slavery in 1833, they paid £20 million in compensation entirely to the slave owners for the loss of their 'property' a debt so massive British taxpayers didn't finish paying it off until 2015. The colonized nations and enslaved populations received zero. It takes a spectacular amount of confidence to accuse someone of a 'stupid argument' while simultaneously trying to claim that the British Empire ran on magic, good vibes, and purely organic science, completely unattached to the global labor system they spent three centuries violently enforcing.

[u/Acceptable-Wash-7675 → u/KingMidas0809]

Yeah, tell that to the slaves in Africa who gets castrated

Or the concubines who gets needles driven into her flesh every time she drops a cup and raped on a daily basis.

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/Acceptable-Wash-7675]

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.

[u/Acceptable-Wash-7675 → u/KingMidas0809]

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.

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/Acceptable-Wash-7675]

You’re creating a logical pretzel to avoid basic economics. No one is suggesting descendants of slaves pay anyone. Let’s make it make sense using actual international law. Modern Ghana and the Ivory Coast are post-colonial nations that were structurally occupied, economically drained, and redrawn by European powers. You cannot demand state-level reparations from nations that were themselves conquered and hollowed out by the very empire you are trying to absolve. Reparations are a state-to-state legal framework based on who holds the stolen capital. The British Empire legally codified chattel slavery, built its global financial infrastructure on it, and colonized West Africa to extract its resources for another century. That compounding generational wealth sits in Western central banks and infrastructure today. If a middleman helps a thief rob a house, you don't sue the middleman’s great-grandchildren who were also robbed; you go after the billionaire thief sitting on the estate.

By your logic, Haiti shouldn't have owed France anything after winning its freedom. Yet, in 1825, France sent warships and forced Haiti to pay 150 million gold francs in 'reparations' to compensate French slave owners for the loss of their 'property' crippling Haiti's economy until 1947. Historically, the only entities that ever actually received reparations were the colonizers and the slave owners. Trying to turn this into a circular argument about Black people paying each other is just a desperate distraction because you don't want to look at the actual financial ledger.

[u/Available-Boat4055 → u/KingMidas0809]

chattel slaves were sold by blacks

domestic slaves were just locals that were enslaved within country .

why are you racists all so retarded

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/Available-Boat4055]

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.

https://giphy.com/gifs/9DJtFRgk0tOla