Arab/Islamic Colonialism

>Because this board is pretty leftist
>Everything that is not neo-nazi fascist or /pol/-tier is left wing
End it. This board is not left wing.

>One could argue that cenral arabs still keep slaves today.
>argue
youtube.com/watch?v=5XzThnFyjG0

>assuming I'm like a fucking nazi or something because I see there is a bit of a liberal bias here
Yeah try again I'm not radically far right at all

There isn't. It's largely apolitical until someone posts a bait thread and people react negatively

Ottoman colonialism only ended in the mid 19th century. Nobody in the West EVER mentions it.

t. butthurt balkan

>I am/was ignorant about something
>It must be cause a conspiracy!

It's literally SJW thought
Maybe using their own reason might beat them
But we all know what Mark Twain said,
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Except when to jerk off to muh Vienna...
Actually forget that part even in that Case the Polish care more than The Austrians for some reason

Because the majority of us don't live in the middle east.

The effects of Arab imperialism and slave trading didn't lead to the establishment of dozens of countries whose liberal educated leaders fought or struggled for independence from Imperial Arab states, and those involved in the slave trade were already largely integrated into local cultures and economies as they were absorbed into these states, and not an ethnic caste of colonists and exploitative capitalists that represented the ideological struggle on which these states were based on.

Nor did Arab slavery leave behind a large ethnic minority who were mistreated and denied rights and who could identify their struggle around the experience of slavery. Arab colonists of the past were more like the Spanish in South America than the British in North America, but had even fewer barriers to integrating imported slaves into both the ruling class and the common folk.

>"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
A perfect example of the OP of this thread.

I'm not the other guy, but you can easily search "Early Muslim Conquests"and find information instead of making a /pol/ tier thread.

>first

What is Rome?

This
Although Persian/Kurdish/Berber( mostly Kabyle) Nationalists attitude to Arab is comparable to Anti Western Attitude in many Former Colonies

>It's not worth discussing why 95% of people are needlessly ignorant of something.

Why do you think this isn't a worthwhile question? It very obviously is. Also OP never implied it was a conspiracy, that was your defensive projection.

>Although Persian/Kurdish/Berber( mostly Kabyle) Nationalists attitude to Arab is comparable to Anti Western Attitude in many Former Colonies

This is mostly in response to the more recent spread of Arab Nationalism during the colonial independence era, however, and pretty subdued and forgotten these days due to Islamism and globalism being much bigger issues than a declining Arab WEWUZ-ism.

I mean, the Qatari football stadium was built using slave labor.

You've got something there. Though it might be worth mentioning the Cypriots, Kurds, and Armenians.

Its not our fault if you did not pay any attention to your clases.

I'm very happy for you and your omniscience, and the fact that you went to a school which taught every subject comprehensively and equally, but I went to a school which omitted some subjects and glossed over others. I, and everyone else on this planet are perfectly justified in discussing why we were taught the curriculum we were, and why our society is more aware of some phenomena than others.

>You've got something there. Though it might be worth mentioning the Cypriots, Kurds, and Armenians.
Those have more to do with modern Turkish Nationalism's expanding power and influence since the end of WW1 and is a result of the fallout from the crumbling Ottoman imperial system. It more resembles the Germans effectively incorporating neighboring lands in Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and France because of large German population centers, suppressing non-Germans, and not getting beaten in a war reversing their gains.

While there's plenty of salt to go around, the conflict today between these groups (except the Kurds) is mostly just irredentism and online bantz and not of much interest to academia or liberal/globalist political groups.

>liberal bias
i dont think thats the reason, western tellings of history are mainly focussed on europe and the doing of, either single individuals, or (proto) nationstates.
Arab "imperialism" dosnt fit into that...its not because those dang libruls...just that no one gives a shit really.

>He never talked to an Iranian Diaspora

>Arab Colonialism
Seriously?

OP clearly has an anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bias.

>They were the ones who began to truly reach for global colonialism and massive slavery.
No, Akkad and maybe even proto-civilizations before Akkad started this. Persia, Alexander, and Rome all had ambitions for "global colonialism" that greatly surpassed that of the Arabs/early Muslims. The effects of the Arabs simply lasted longer than those of the aforementioned empires.

Also, Arab slavery wasn't even that bad. Ever heard of the Mamluks? Despite being slaves, they went on to control large portions of the caliphs' politics and military. An Islamic custom of slavery is to groom slaves to eventually take up an occupation after manumission. Meanwhile, Western slavery almost entirely forbid the education of slaves.

>"b-but muh barbary coast!"
A slave trade maintained by Berbers who had been slaving long before Islam.

I do so daily, because I need my fix of grilled food and the local Iranians keep me hooked. But the banter of minority immigrants isn't a big deal in the political or historical debate unless they're well organized locally in important political centers like the Armenians in SoCal or the Cubans in Florida.

Yurops really don't like to admit there were any great civilizations besides Greece, Rome, and Yurop. Yurop is the only civilization that matters.

This confuses the American because America used to be Yurop colony, and focuses on Yurop history, but is not part of Yurop.

Barbary slave trade wasn't fucking maintained by Berbers. It was Ottomans and Arabs.

Why argue with this projected boogeyman? Wouldn't it be simpler to address the question? Are you sure it is OP who is the paranoid one?
Also if you're arguing that all arab slaves were well educated and groomed for cushy jobs you're very silly.

>The Barbary Coast, or Berber Coast, was the term used by Europeans from the 16th until the 19th century to refer to much of the collective land of the Berber people. Today, the term Greater Maghreb or simply "Maghreb" corresponds roughly to "Barbary". The term "Barbary Coast" emphasizes the Berber coastal regions and cities throughout the middle and western coastal regions of North Africa – what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. The English term "Barbary" (and its European varieties: Barbaria, Berbérie, etc.) referred mainly to the entire Berber lands including non-coastal regions, deep into the continent, as seen in European geographical and political maps published during the 17–20th centuries.[1]

>The name is derived from the Berber people of north Africa. In the West, the name commonly evoked the Barbary pirates and Barbary Slave Traders based on that coast, who attacked ships and coastal settlements in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic and captured and traded slaves or goods from Europe, America and sub-Saharan Africa which finally provoked the Barbary Wars.[2] The slaves and goods were being traded and sold throughout the Ottoman Empire or to the Europeans themselves.

>IMPLYING

Does that mean the Atlantic slave trade was maintained by Atlanteans?

>Why argue with this projected boogeyman?
Because it's false. History shouldn't have any boogeymen.

>Also if you're arguing that all arab slaves were well educated and groomed for cushy jobs you're very silly.
Of course that isn't the case. Yet not only did Arab slavery have a large portion of the slaves become educated, but the harsher aspects of Arab slavery are no different from any other slave trade. It's idiotic to say complain about people saying the North Atlantic Slave Trade was bad, and then going and saying "hey look, x slave trade is bad!".

OP clearly shows a bias as well. He subtly implies that criticism of western slavery bothers him, yet he is quick to criticize Arab/Islamic slavery. Why can't both be viewed neutrally, as many historians recommend?

>Tribes in Western Africa bring slaves to ports on the Atlantic coast of Africa
>Europeans coming from France, Spain, England, and Portugal (all countries with access to the Atlantic Ocean) go to ports on the Atlantic African coast to buy African slaves
>These Europeans take their slaves across the Atlantic Ocean to the Atlantic coasts of the Americas
>Americans living on the these Atlantic coasts receive the slaves via monetary transaction

Technically yes, it was maintained by Atlanteans.

Yes

kek, you're right wing conspiracy theorist OP is the boogeyman I referred to. Why not address his question, rather that theorise about his ideology?

I believe his question was, why is X talked about more than Y. You have extrapolated a huge amount from this. If you can infer a bias, why not educate him by answering his question, rather than complaining about it?

>If you can infer a bias, why not educate him by answering his question, rather than complaining about it?
Fine, I'll educate him.

Arab history in general is often overlooked because 1. schools don't see its importance (this is a big one in the US) 2. there is a gain for the West when children grow up knowing nothing about the Middle East/Arab World other than "DUDE ISIS LMAO!"

Noice one m8, well done.

That goes both ways, and has nothing to do with modern nationalism, seeing as was a thing in Ferdowsi's time too.

It's interesting that you also imply that there is a conspiracy to keep children uneducated about the middle east so they only associate it with terrorism. Just as much of a conspiracy theory as saying it's not taught to reinforce white guilt or something like that. Errybody got dey theoriz and shiet.

this cuts many ways.
Personally I was surprised about arab history up until the Crusades. The way I was taught in school, I had always been under the impression
> Relgion LMAO
> go crusade bitschez!

The actual reasons and historical context of the crusades are lost on many westerners - especially in Germany. It's ( especially here ) more about the perpetuation of a white-guilt narrative, as most of German History Education is.

Also, what I read in this thread is sickeningly biased.
Berbers and Ottomans bought slaves that wer castrated and marched on deathmarches through fucking deserts. Most of those people died and they were worth less than dirt.

The act of castration alone is such cruelty which cannot be matched by western slaveholders - whom rather regarded their slaves as a value in and of themselves, whose reproduction and family could benefit them.

The sole fact, that niggers in murrica can complain about slavery ( even though their living standards far exceed that standard of sub saharan africans - or just look at Liberia. LOL ), is testament to the lax policies of the West.

The sole fact that arab slavepeoples cant complain is due to them mostly being eunuchs and castrats, being worked to death and treated like less than dirt. They have no heritage and there is no former-slave-population to speak of.