Blacks sold their own into slavery

>Blacks sold their own into slavery
Why do people say this? In Africa there's no "black" concept. They are separated into tribes. It has also been shown that the genetic difference between African people is greater than between Africans and Eurasians.

>blacks sell other blacks to slavery but they were too dumb to comprehend they were black too so it doesn't count haha lmao

No, you dumbfuck. Their skin if black but "blacks" are more different genetically between then than the difference between black and whites. Do you get this? Do I have to draw?

If you disregard the color of their skin, there's more difference between Africans than Africans and white. This is a scientific fact.

>Whites bought africans
Do i even need to go on?
But yeah, much like europeans couldnt really give a shit what happens to another diffrent european, africans couldnt really give a shit what hapens to another african. Like most africans think american blacks are spoiled brats and wouldnt really care what happened to them.
Its mostly retards fixated on identity politics and nationalists that think this kind of stuff is relevant.

>more different genetically between then than the difference between black and whites
Which blacks? All of the ones selling their own kin to slavery were West Africans, who definitely are far closer to one another than they are to Europeans.

>europeans couldnt really give a shit what happens to another diffrent european
This is not really true, "Christendom", "the west" and "European civilization" was a thing ever since the middle ages. Blacks didn't have any similar concept for Africa.

Weren't the first big slave Atlantic slave traders dutch Jews, or have I been listening to /pol/ too much?

Even if it's true. They were of separated tribes. Much like Germans that IIRC are very genetically similar to other Europeans but they wouldn't consider themselves the same.

Im not familiar with the topic but dutch were among the first for sure as far as northern colonies went. It wouldnt be suprising really, jews usually had pretty limited job choices so slave trade would probably one of those not banned for them jobs.

>>Blacks sold their own into slavery
Do you believe Africans didn't have rape, slavery and murder?
They complain as if they're perfect and aren't racist themselves, as if they're the only ones who've suffered. Lots of people in self-proclaimed "special" groups rage and against others who are not in their group. They're special, specious, chosen.

And the "europeans" who engaged in the slavetrade are all generalized in the same way. Deal with it.

That still didn't stop them from killing fellow christians or Europeans.

And yet, that european identity didnt stop
>wwi
>wwii
>effective subjugation of irish by british, baltic peoples by germans, poles by prussia russians and austrians, swedes by finns, italians by spanish and aistrians, cossacks by russians and poles
Males you thinks..

finns by swedes i mean*
also
>old believers discriminated by russian empire
>protestant dissenters and catholics discriminated by anglican establishment
>calvinists by bourbons
>waldensians by italian catholics
>all minorities in spain

>believing in irish lies about the english rule over them

>whitey has to suffer white guilt and get beat up for crimes they apologized for over and over while taking BBC up the ass
>meanwhile arabs/turks get away scot-free after centuries of slavery and even today you can buy castrated darkies to clean your toiltet or beat up for no reason in "certain" nations
tamam

>In Africa there's no "black" concept. They are separated into tribes.

Exact
They often genocide people that belong to another village, even now in the 21st century

sub-saharan africans were the primary captors and sellers of sub-saharan african slaves. better?

>It has also been shown that the genetic difference between African people is greater than between Africans and Eurasians.

This sentence is retarded
How can two Africans tribes that have the same genetical closeness to whitey be very different from each others?

>If you disregard the color of their skin, there's more difference between Africans than Africans and white. This is a scientific fact.

Race isnt merely defined by skin color
Facial features play a lot too (pic related) and two African tribes will always look more similar than they look to whitey

>b-but muh scientific studies from the Commiefornia university financed by Schlomo Shekellstein

because it gives people a way to detract from the racial component...

Ignorant people believe that the only way Europeans got slaves was to go ashore and kidnap them. They are typically ignorant thaat there was already a tribal slave trade established.

It's like saying whites sold whites arabs

>This

blacks and some whites blame the horrors of slavery on just whites. African tribes were often just as culpable

Because the Ashanti kingdom flourished and fell with the slaves trade.

Africans don't have a concept of race. Tribes conquered other tribes and sold them to Europeans as slaves for personal gains.

>Implying people weren't appalled by shit like this

>liberal mental gymnastics

>Why do people say this?
Because it's true. Blacks sold other blacks into slavery. You're autistic if you don't understand the meaning. Either way, it's a counter to the propaganda that whites went into jungles with nets and captured blacks to sell rather than the reality that 99.9% of slaves were purchased from their fellow Africans.

becasue the issue is always the "white slavery", so then it is pointed out that the blacks themselves did in fact practice slavery, as did the arabs.

I'm not trying to generalize, but it's fact that Ireland existed in subjugation to England to varying degrees over the last millennium. The period I have in mind is the conquest of Ireland in the 16th century, during which Ireland effectively became a prototype for north american colonial settlements. The whole Ulster Plantation and other such schemes in Northern and Eastern coasts of Ireland the late 16th/early 17th century led to various massacres and big expulsions of the Irish inhabitants there. Another wave of violence, as is well known, came with the Cromwellian invasion which, regardless of English intentions, was really destructive. Then you have the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which triggered a Civil War in Ireland during which English forces of the Dutch king forces triumphed and passed a series of highly discriminatory laws that eliminated the Irish catholics from political life of the island almost one and a half centuries (again, enforcement varied with the time).

>You know how blacks ended up in America? Slavers brought them here. And you think it is easy to step out of your boat in Nigeria and snatch a young, agile nigger? They only took those village idiots, who were sold by their chief in exchange for a pack of fags, because he would not have any use of them. Either that, or those who couldn't outrun a net in their own neighbourhood. And all these people came here, got married, had kids. The world moved forward, you have credit cards, amphetamine, areoplanes, but what does it matter, if in these people still flows blood of a man who got himself caught in his own fucking backyard.

>the differences between two smaller groups is larger than the average differences between the of large groups of groups

amazing

what an astounding phenomenon. Not like this is covered in Stats 101 or anything.

>Why do people say this?

Because it delegitimizes the narrative of the White devils who came into the peaceful Black King's cities, burned everything down and kidnapped the women and children. Acknowledging that Africans themselves played a part and even tried to resist abolitionism is an integral part of dismantling the arguments for White guilt, reparations, etc.

>Africans don't have a concept of race.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA