The point, which should be abundantly obvious, is how recent race based chattel slavery being ended is, and how it was present throughout the history of the US.
The fact is that the US was built on race based chattel slavery. The US is fundamentally structured on racial hierarchy, with Black individuals existing under White ones. This has been legally codified for the bulk of the US’s lifespan, and is a foundational part of the way the US is structured.
This could be similarly said about Brazil, which was also organized around race based chattel slavery, with Europeans importing slaves from Africa there as well.
“Europe” or “Islam” are irrelevant and too broad to be useful terms for historical analysis or at all relevant here.
You get that there is a pattern of shitty historical revisionists that bring up “Muslim slavery” to minimize US slavery? Which you just did?
Is “Islam” a universal world view? If you want to talk about Islam and slavery, at bare fucking minimum you need to talk about a specific area, time period and its strain of Islam. I have no idea what your vague illusion to “Europe” was even supposed to mean in the context of slavery.
I think you just need to recognize that you know next to nothing about this topic, and when one knows nothing, they need to shut the fuck up.
You get that there is a pattern of shitty historical revisionists that bring up “Muslim slavery” to minimize US slavery? Which you just did?
Sorry, you’re going to have to clarify this for me. 1) Which revisionists? 2) Why is “muslim slavery” different to “slavery”? What did I do?
Islam is not a world view, what? It’s a religion that has a long history (that a large part includes slavery).
Europe, as implied by the very first post, was a large part of the North American slave trade. However, the UK effectively ended the African slave trade, the first I believe, long before the US did, which is why I mentioned it.
Lost causers and other racists who want to pretend that the US’s mass enslavement, torture, rape and murder of Africans wasn’t unique.
Why is “muslim slavery” different to “slavery”?
There is not one thing that you can generically refer to as “Muslim slavery.” You can be specific - you can talk about Ottoman slavery, or slavery under the Abassids or something, but saying “Muslim slavery” is a dead give away that you’ve done absolutely zero thinking or research. It’s just a generic “other people had slaves too!” non sequitor.
Why are you trying to make arguments about a topic you clearly have no understanding of? Would you try to teach a calculus class if you had never taken an integral?
The point, which should be abundantly obvious, is how recent race based chattel slavery being ended is, and how it was present throughout the history of the US.
The fact is that the US was built on race based chattel slavery. The US is fundamentally structured on racial hierarchy, with Black individuals existing under White ones. This has been legally codified for the bulk of the US’s lifespan, and is a foundational part of the way the US is structured.
This could be similarly said about Brazil, which was also organized around race based chattel slavery, with Europeans importing slaves from Africa there as well.
“Europe” or “Islam” are irrelevant and too broad to be useful terms for historical analysis or at all relevant here.
I agree, I shouldn’t have taken a worldview (Brazil, Europe or Islam) when the post was clearly about the US.
You get that there is a pattern of shitty historical revisionists that bring up “Muslim slavery” to minimize US slavery? Which you just did?
Is “Islam” a universal world view? If you want to talk about Islam and slavery, at bare fucking minimum you need to talk about a specific area, time period and its strain of Islam. I have no idea what your vague illusion to “Europe” was even supposed to mean in the context of slavery.
I think you just need to recognize that you know next to nothing about this topic, and when one knows nothing, they need to shut the fuck up.
Sorry, you’re going to have to clarify this for me. 1) Which revisionists? 2) Why is “muslim slavery” different to “slavery”? What did I do?
Islam is not a world view, what? It’s a religion that has a long history (that a large part includes slavery).
Europe, as implied by the very first post, was a large part of the North American slave trade. However, the UK effectively ended the African slave trade, the first I believe, long before the US did, which is why I mentioned it.
Lost causers and other racists who want to pretend that the US’s mass enslavement, torture, rape and murder of Africans wasn’t unique.
There is not one thing that you can generically refer to as “Muslim slavery.” You can be specific - you can talk about Ottoman slavery, or slavery under the Abassids or something, but saying “Muslim slavery” is a dead give away that you’ve done absolutely zero thinking or research. It’s just a generic “other people had slaves too!” non sequitor.
Why are you trying to make arguments about a topic you clearly have no understanding of? Would you try to teach a calculus class if you had never taken an integral?
Maybe he can’t… differentiate between the two.