Forces more powerful than religion - The African slave trade

[robhiengler]

Actually I wrote that comment and how is it a misconception. Which goes to prove one thing if you can't get your facts straight pretty much everything else you write is BS. Not to mention you took my second comment completely out of context as it wasn't related to slavery in the first place. Also the King was head of the church!

Your own words and quotes show that the arabs were clearly the ones acquiring the slaves they merely didn't have the capital to pick up where the europeans left off.

[markellion]

@robhiengler It was a misconception because it wasn't until the Mid-seventeenth century that the slave trade took off.

The king said the African slave trade was consistent with the natural rights of man and this aspect of it wasn't religious.

Robert Norris wrote

"nor could the adventurers regard this traffic as inconsistent with the natural rights of mankind,"

differentiating it from religious justification

[robhiengler]

@markellion 1 of 2

The misconception is yours in misquoting and misrepresenting what I have written. You well know what said was that there was a slave trade already existent in Africa. I wasn't saying the Atlantic trade

Robert Norris (a slave trader btw) also wrote:

"The adventurers in this trade, who have seen for near a century past, the Society for propagating Christianity, composed of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and many pious doctors of the established church,

[robhiengler]

deriving, as masters, a yearly income from the labor of their Negroe slaves in the West Indies, which is appropriated to the increase of Christianity in the world, could not consider it as contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures, or to the principles of morality:"

so please quote the ENTIRE SENTENCE not just the part which supports your argument. They DIDN't find contrary to SCRIPTURE either therefore the church supported it. The King is as well head of the Church get your facts straight!

[robhiengler]

@Markellion

In addition In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas which gave the Portugese the right to reduce any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary slavery. In fact it was the Spanish and Portugese who transported black slaves 100 years before any Dutch ship reached the New World. So you're wrong at least 3 counts there, armchair historian? Sheesh you haven't even done your research.

[markellion]

As the video said even though a slave trade existed it was during the reign of Charles II that it boomed

[robhiengler]

Considering was not the whole point of this video was actually to disprove "my misconception" that SLAVERY EXISTED ON THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA prior to the British!? You have rather shot yourself in the foot. I guessing that's the closest I will get to an apology and a retraction.

[markellion]

I'm sorry I wrote down the wrong name

[BlackNationForums]

Do you have any info on Ibn khaladun, and his anti-African sentiments?

[markellion]

@BlackNationForums Anti African sentiments were put into his writings after colonialism

[robhiengler]

by who exactly? Provide your evidence.

[markellion]

@robhiengler The French did

See video:

Arab / Muslim Literature on black people And "The Colonial Imaginary"

[robhiengler]

@Markellion

Actually what your video says is the French translated into their own language with their own idiosyncrasies and prejudices, hence that was the French perception of Ibn khaladun based on their faulty translation. They DID NOT ALTER the ORIGINAL arabic text now did they! But then again you specifically refer to William de Slane NOT the COMPLETE translation by Silvestre de Sacy which was widely received in Europe.

So how much more BS are you going to write?

[markellion]

@robhiengler The important thing is that Ibn Khaldun did not have any racist feelings.

[robhiengler]

@markellion

Again that is pure speculation. Although I find it bemusing that multiple independent translators of various religions and countries would get it wrong. If Ibn Khaldun didn't write only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. when referring to blacks, please enlighten us in what he actually wrote. Said al-Andalusi another renowned scholar prior to Ibn Khaldun had exactly the same conceptions.

[markellion]

@robhiengler We both know Ibn Khaldun was not a racist

[markellion]

The idea of Ibn Khaldun being a racist contradicts so many things that he actually said.

If he was a racist I'd like you to explain the inconsistencies

[robhiengler]

@markellion

Actually I don't know at all if he was a racist or not. As to explain the inconsistencies all I can say peoples opinions change over time. What he had written earlier he may not believe in later. For example HP Lovecraft undoubtedly wrote racist commentary in his literature, but changed his opinion towards the end of his life and he admitted his opinion was entirely based on social perception not reality. You still owe me that translation on what Ibn Khaldun actually wrote.

[markellion]

@robhiengler the English translation where Ibn Khaldun is made into a racist is found in Franz Rosenthal's translation of THE MUQADDIMAH

[robhiengler]

@markellion

Yet Franz Rosenthal (a professor of semetic languages) wasn't the only one who translated Ibn Khaldun was he. In fact this is the latest in a long line of translations all saying the same thing. Find me a reputable critical source that disproves the "racist" translations - because you can't.

Has this now become a US-Jewish conspiracy? I think you've taken Abdelmajid Hannoum's paper way off base. Faced with the truth all you can do is deny.

[markellion]

What I said might sound suspicious but there is an 1841 book "The Negroland of the Arabs" which quotes him allot and shows no racism in Ibn Khaldun's writings

The book itself should be taken with a grain of salt and I know has mistranslations in it

[markellion]

See descriptions box

FRERE'S CRUSADE:

"As the Arabs have not the wealth to carry on the slave trade to any extent, the British cruisers will be able to put a stop to it"

Another person wrote

"For Dr. Livingstone is no doubt perfectly right in saying that, whilst the Arabs are ready enough to find the men who will conduct the actual risks of the trade, they have not the wealth necessary to advance the capital required"

[robhiengler]

Hmm but to acquire the slaves the Arabs must have some sort of infrastructure set up. Yet you claim they couldn't possibly have so who was getting these black slaves? Was Livingston right on one point yet wrong on the other? Isn't pure conjecture on Livingston's point that arab slave traders didn't have the capital necessary, you also seem to left out "to any extent" which suggested they could have not to the same extent as the British.