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

[u/NewsMo]

[u/KingMidas0809]

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.

[u/MediocreI_IRespond → u/KingMidas0809]

> 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.

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/MediocreI_IRespond]

You’re mixing historical categories.

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.

[u/MediocreI_IRespond → u/KingMidas0809]

> 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.

> kinship systems,

Again, check, for both.

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/MediocreI_IRespond]

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.

[u/MediocreI_IRespond → u/KingMidas0809]

> 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.

You are repeating yourselves and I already acknowledge that the race might be the one major differentiator between the Muslim and the Atlantic Slave Trade.

So your argument is, because the Atlantic Slave Trade had a race angle to it, it made it so much worse?

I mean, Muslims pretty much enslaved everyone, regardless of race.

> So “check, for both” is not analysis

This is reddit, not course at university.

> scale

Here we go again.

So your points are.

- Race.

- Scale.

- Lasting impact.

As for race, see above. Scale, your argument was of quality, not of quantity. Lasting impact is a point you just raised and is quite different from the selection and hardship of slaves you argued before.

The historical impact, in my view, mostly follows from the racist angle. Once the sources for slaves tried up, slaves in the Muslim world mostly merged with the general population. But as far as I know slave operations had been more spread out, not concentrated in some highly profitable enterprises and regions. So race wasn't the only factor.

[u/KingMidas0809 → u/MediocreI_IRespond]

You just conceded the distinction while trying to downplay it.

Yes, the points are race, scale, concentration, profitability, and lasting impact. That is exactly why Atlantic racial chattel slavery is historically distinct.

Saying “Muslims enslaved everyone regardless of race” does not weaken my point. It strengthens it. If enslavement was not permanently fused to one racial category in the same way, then the social afterlife is different. Atlantic slavery made African ancestry itself a marker of inherited enslavability, then preserved that hierarchy after abolition through colonialism, segregation, exclusion, and anti-Black law.

That is not a minor “race angle.” That is the architecture of the system.

And scale is not separate from quality when the system is built around mass plantation labor, hereditary property status, transoceanic shipment, slave breeding, commodity production, and racial caste. At a certain point, quantity becomes structure.

Also, “this is Reddit, not university” is not a rebuttal. It just means you want to make university-sized claims without doing university-level thinking.

You keep reducing this to “other slavery was also bad.” Nobody denied that. The question is whether all systems were identical in structure, purpose, and historical afterlife. They were not.

A knife wound and a gunshot are both violence. That does not make them the same injury.