Why aren't North Africans and Middle Easterners culpabilized for being enslavers...

Slaves in the arab trade were pretty diverse, but slave trading was a huge cultural corner stone of Africa, don't let them fool you. In fact, I remember a certain Tribe/Empire told the Europeans to fuck off because it was part of their culture when Europeans were trying to stop it.

Why didn't we learn about slavery in China? Because there's only so much material you can get though. If you're American, of course you have to learn about things that happened in your own country

Arabs raided the whole European coastline, even taking slaves from as far as Ireland. And even tho obviously Turks are not Arabs, they took over the pre-existing Arab slave trade when they conquered the Middle East so their slave taking can be described under the general umbrella of Arab or Islamic slave trade.

By how much though? Arabs had the whole of East Africa compared to just Iberia and Sicily and If they took way more Europeans than Africans, did that mean Iberia and Sicily were severely depopulated?

>severely depopulated

How many slaves do think we're talking about? At most it's ten millions, spread over the ~1,000 years of the Islamic slave trade. But yes, there are accounts of Barbary pirates raiding coastlines for slaves, leaving whole villages empty in their wake.

To be fair, they learned castrating from the Byzantines.

Not him and no idea but Iberia is severely depopulated in 2016. Spain alone is one of the biggest countries in the EU yet less populated than smaller countries like Germany or the UK.

40% of the Roman Empire were slaves, and few few of them were black

The Byzzzies didn't practise slavery tho.

very few*

>I remember a certain Tribe/Empire told the Europeans to fuck off because it was part of their culture when Europeans were trying to stop it.

Could it be Ghezo, of the Kingdom of Dahomey?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Byzantine_Empire

> It's because the Arabs castrated every male nigger they bought. 90% of them died from this procedure,

Where did you hear this?
Where on earth do you think it's good business to invest in getting slaves and then do a procedure where you lost 9 out of 10 of your fucking stock? And what about the females? Are you saying none were ever knocked up? Or are you going to act like the Arabs just threw the babies off cliffs or suckerpunched their pregnant black slaves whilst probably laughing maniacally?

Are you trolling? You can literally google this stuff, man. What makes you think one of the largest, longest lasting empires didn't practice slavery?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Byzantine_Empire

the "tho" part should be enough to prove this faggot doesn't know what he is talking about

If the Africans converted to Islam, they had to be let go, which most of them did in their lifetime. The Arabs obviously didn't kill their mixed children, I imagine they'd deny them at most. The Africans that didn't get their nuts chopped probably married Arabs/Berbers, slowly becoming indistinguishable through generations, kind of like white people that are 1/16th Cherokee.

>Why aren't North Africans and Middle Easterners culpabilized for being enslavers?

They were only directly involved in the Mediterranean and Central/South Asian slave raids which were based on religion more than race, followed pretty ancient customs, and theoretically if not practically a tit-for-tat affair where Middle Easterners could also be raided and enslaved. Outside of that, their involvement in the East European and African slave raids were indirect in the form of demand, flow of currency, and merchant networks connecting entrepots. And the states that formed due to their involvement in this trade tended to go on and form the modern nations or peoples that make up these regions today. Thus Poland and Zanzibar, despite being major exporters of slaves to the Middle East, do not have national narratives that involve the overthrow of Arab exploitation as their Medieval or early Modern states became wealthy and powerful through their active collusion, not subjugation.

The Middle East also has a habit of assimilating imported slaves into the population as they converted, rather than segregating them to the point where they form their own ethnic identities that clash with the majority population.

There are in fact many Middle Easterners with African ancestry, as well as several aristocratic houses on the coasts of Africa and, oddly, India who are mixed Arab/African. Castration was done sporadically, especially for African slaves, as most were used for manual labor and not domestically (here Slavs and Indians were preferred).

They were an undeveloped economy with very little exports as valuable as live human beings at a time where European and Arab markets had expanded globally, incorporating levels of demand for labor not seen since the Roman Empire. In the 9th century this same trade brought in Slavs, and before that Germanics.

>Where did you hear this?

This is well known, idk it's a surprise to you. The death rate was closer to 60% but even so that makes approximate 80 million blacks killed to provide the ~20 million known African slaves throughout the ~1,300 years of muslim slave trading.

>did that mean Iberia and Sicily were severely depopulated?
The majority of slaves in the Middle East during the Middle Ages came from Eastern Europe.

Iberia can only support large populations along a handful of river basins. It's a very rocky country compared to a breadbasket like France or the Low Countries.

>If the Africans converted to Islam

Not true, they were forbidden to take muslims as slaves but had no obligation to release a slave just because he became a muslim.

>tries to act smart and presumptuous
>turns out sounding like an ignorant retard

Modern liberal everyone

>The death rate was closer to 60%

There's a pretty big fucking difference between 60% and 90%, try not to straight up fucking lie about stats next time to try and make a point.
Your stats might be bullshit for all I know because you obviously don't mind fudging the numbers significantly, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt.

>so that makes approximate 80 million blacks killed to provide the ~20 million known African slaves

If 20 million is known and you're assuming that's number is the 40% that survived, that leaves closer to 65 million killed by castration.
And that's assuming 100% of them are male and every single one of them was castrated, which is obviously fucking false. So unless you can cook up a ratio for the male/female rate of enslavement I'm just gonna say 50/50, though it may favor males due to labor demands... Even in that case why would you castrate a plantation laborer / miner etc? Waste of time, waste of money, needless 60% chance of death. You'd only bother to castrate a domestic slave.
Anyway, ignoring that. So 50% of 65 million are castrated, 32.5 million. 60% chance of death for that procedure, 19.5 million.

If you can cook up a legitimate source for your numbers I'll read it, until then I assume your source is your ass.

>This is well known
The question is well known to who. What historian of the Middle East or Africa believes every African slave shipped to the Islamic world were castrated?

>turks are not arabs

t. Mehmet

>ad hominem because I called out an obviously unreasonable uncited claim and asked for a source

Fuck off.

slavery in China got outlawed more than 2000 years ago

cuz dey made us kingz and shiet!

You tell yourself that kek

It sounds like great business if you're a slave trader, why let your customers grow their own?

Fucking Google it you fucking tard. I'm not even him but it certainly is well-known.
>While Islamic law forbade the emasculation of a man, Ethiopian Christians had no such compunctions; thus, they enslaved and emasculated members of territories to the south and sold the resulting eunuchs to the Ottoman Porte.[25][26] The Coptic Orthodox Church participated extensively in the slave trade of eunuchs. Coptic priests sliced the penis and testicles off boys around the age of eight in a castration operation.[27] The eunuch boys were then sold in the Ottoman Empire. The majority of Ottoman eunuchs endured castration at the hands of the Copts at Abou Gerbe monastery on Mount Ghebel Eter.[27] Slave boys were captured from the African Great Lakes region and other areas in Sudan like Darfur and Kordofan then sold to customers in Egypt.[19][25] During the operation, the Coptic clergyman chained the boys to tables and after slicing their sexual organs off, stuck bamboo catheters into the genital area, then submerged them in sand up to their necks. The recovery rate was 10 percent. The resulting eunuchs fetched large profits in contrast to eunuchs from other areas.[28][29][30]
That guy you were talking to is completely wrong, 90% of them did die.

Say you're an Arab slave trader. You spend time busting your ass to get 100 African slaves that you can sell for, say, I don't know, 100 Mohammed-bucks a piece or something.

Do you want to slash 90% of your profits to be sure that nobody's shorthanding you 20 years down the line by having their slaves reproduce?

So Ethiopians contributed 100% of all Arab slaves?

I just looked at your shitty wikipedia article and guess what, that quote is under the title "Slaves in the Imperial harem" not "every fucking slave in all of the middle east" you fucking retard. Or do you think every arab slave guarded the Ottoman sultan's harem?

>I just looked at your shitty wikipedia article
Fully fucking sourced. if you want to be a pedantic little aspie shit about a fucking Veeky Forums post then read those, see if I give a shit.

>that quote is under the title "Slaves in the Imperial harem" not "every fucking slave in all of the middle east" you fucking retard. Or do you think every arab slave guarded the Ottoman sultan's harem?
You were told what happened to African slaves in the Ottoman Empire, you disagreed despite knowing nothing about it, and I provided you with information about it because I've written essays about Ottoman slavery before. I have no interest in this conversation or your goalpost shifts beyond that. You can carry on this game with the other two anons if you'd like.

Let me quote the guy's statement:

> It's because the Arabs castrated every male nigger they bought. 90% of them died from this procedure,

I said that's impractical as shit and asked him to provide a source.
You provided a source that demonstrates one (pretty fucked up) Ethiopian castration procedure for harem slaves (a luxury item as far as slaves go). So sure, okay. Let's agree that retarded Ethiopian procedure (performed by African Christians, not Arabs, but whatever) had a 90% fatality rate. Somehow you (or he, if you're not him) managed to infer this was done to ALL AFRICAN SLAVES captured by Arabs.

How am I shifting goalposts by calling that user on his fucking nonsense?

I proclaim you the winner

Because that slavery wasn't race based
Because the only society that actively discusses the topic is the US
Because you assume through an Americanized lens of slavery discussion that Middle Eastern Slavery (and all other forms of it throughout history) is not acknowledged.

>(performed by African Christians, not Arabs, but whatever)
You realize all African slaves were bought from Africans both by Europeans and Turks, right? It's not like there were American Southerners out in the bush catching them with nets, or something. Your point was that Ottoman slavery was not as egregious as American chattel slavery, when in fact African slaves were treated worse, the only difference being that they were east Africans instead of western.

>managed to infer this was done to ALL AFRICAN SLAVES captured by Arabs.
But it pretty much was. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was heavily segregated by race. Africans were not desirable as Harem members and I am not aware of any African Janissary units. The former was mostly Circassians, Slavs, and Syrians and the latter were mostly Greeks, Albanians, Romanians, and Balkan Slavs.

>Your point was that Ottoman slavery was not as egregious as American chattel slavery, when in fact African slaves were treated worse, the only difference being that they were east Africans instead of western.

Literally all I said was the guy who claimed all African slaves were castrated and therefore 90% of all African slaves were killed by castration was full of shit. I've seen zero evidence that all African men enslaved by Arabs were castrated, much less by this specific Ethiopian method.

>Africans were not desirable as Harem members and I am not aware of any African Janissary units

Then why do you need African eunuchs? What practical use is there for castrating a slave if not for a purpose where being a eunuch is beneficial? How do you conclude "they must have castrated all their African slaves" from an article saying harem slaves were castrated, and then saying Africans usually weren't harem slaves?

Because the majority of humanity is short sighted, metaphorically speaking they can only see 1 step back and 10 feet in front.
In the context of history this means that they only pay attention to recent events(1 step back), meaning western(10 feet in front) dominated slaver(as that is what is popular in media). When I say "they" I mean most people you interact with in the western world. If you pay attention you will see that people in shit conditions today(even if they were once a great empire) can do no wrong.
>Was a temporary and recent defeat against the West enough for us to neglect their immoral involvements forever?
Yes because they currently aren't in power

>tell Brits you're working on getting rid of slavery while you sacrifice hundreds of them annually and build your palace with adobe made with their blood and bones

pretty cool dude

It was only temporary because the Brits and others eventually forced them to stop it.

>muh racism

I don't think slaves gave a shit wheter their masters were racist against them or not. And there was racism in the Middle East and N. Africa anyway.