What the fuck

Sorry wrong thread

It's okay buddy, I forgive you

How else would you get that cotton picked?

So why didn't they leave after they became free people? I thought that is what president Lincoln wanted anyway.

>Everyone land owning man has slaves from 5500 BC to 1700 AD
Source: your ass

Using the way promoted by Adam Smith and the other contemporary economist, as described in all the utopian books of the time: with a network of small familial plantations of aproximately the same size. In other words: exactly how it was done before merchants started to by tousands of slaves to a black king and create huge plantations, making prices drop and making the colonists dirt poor.

The Barbary slave trade was when Arabs pirates captured European sailors or peasants all over the Mediterranean and sold them in north Africa. We are speaking of hundreds of thousands of people here.

To stop it, France had to colonise the coast of Magreb. Yes, in the XIXth century.

where did the OP say anything about white people? kys

For eastern Europe, it is true because serf were considered part of the land and could be bought and sold by the land owners.
In western Europe, the servage system was better and life was good. Anyway, Christianity condemn slavery so you won't find a real slavery trade in medieval Europe, unlike in the antique time or in Muslim countries, India or China at any time.

Don't get me stared on black Africa, there is more slave here right now than there ever was in the US at any point of time. If someone is not revolted by this fact I know what are his real motivations when he condemn the triangular trade.

>Don't get me stared on black Africa, there is more slave here right now than there ever was in the US at any point of time. If someone is not revolted by this fact I know what are his real motivations when he condemn the triangular trade.

American Blacks always seem ignorant to this point, and when it is brought to their attention they always retreat to "We in America I'm talking about America." as if that negates the fact that his OWN ANCESTORS sold their own people into slavery.

It probably wasn't his ancestors unless they sold their own kids into slavery.

>White people did something wrong
>so did some black people
>Therefore, white people didn't do anything wrong

Phew, that was easy.

It still fucking amazes me that this kind of slavery gave better returns than the more 'humane' kind. I mean the average passage was what? Two months? It really boggles the mind that the percentage of survivors tended to be high enough not to make the voyage a loss.

>Christianity condemn slavery so you won't find a real slavery trade in medieval Europe
Top fucking kek. Half the whores in southern Europe came from north Africa from the start of barbary piracy to the 19th century. Venetians and spaniards counter-raided the ever living shit out of muzzies. Spaniards furthermore also had a tradition of enslaving muslims for farming purposes, but that kinda ended by the low middle ages.
And let's not even get started on the fucking franks and the high middle ages in general. Because enslaving pagans and buying christian slaves from pagan raiders is totally christian behaviour, am I right?

I was just wondering whether the economics of this actually worked. With all those people cramped in together and pissing and shitting on each other and themselves disease spread pretty rapidly. Often the crew and the slaves would be bear wiped out, it seems to me that slightly more humane conditions and a smaller load would produce a greater return overall.

It may be that I am wrong and packing them in tight overcame the costs from death or it may be that the understanding of how living conditions and filth cause disease was still too crude. It was surprisingly recently in human history that doctors realised washing their hands was a good idea.

Jokes aside, it's actually a fair objection. If you expect to be allowed to extract reparations from the descendents of slavers and people who had nothing to do with it and just share a 'race' with slavers, then you better fucking expect to be asked for reparations too, since your ancestors enslaved people and members of your race did too, regardless of who and what you are.
If you don't want to be accused, then shut the fuck up, or you look like a hypocrite.

Slavery is an important part of black "cultures". They sold millions to the muslims and millions to the white man.

Slavery was almost always banned in our cultures. We were the first ones to fight it on a global scale and even today we lead this fight.

>but that kinda ended by the low middle ages.
So, when it became Christian again?

Last time I checked, Vikings were the one taking Franks as slave and asked for a ransom.

>It may be that I am wrong and packing them in tight overcame the costs from death
You are indeed wrong. I can't post you sources because I read it on paper, but there were a good few slavers that went for more human treatment, with better food/accomodations/exercise/medical care/etc. It didn't take because it didn't pay off nearly as well, short of the whole shipload dying en route to the americas. The best way was to pack them tight and then allow them some time in fattening farms to recuperate before sale.

Wrong, again you can't own a slave if it was christian and even if the person wasn't christian which is retarded since Catholics in the past wanted to convert everyone.

I never got that one. Uncleaned shit and a tropical climate is a certain way to die.
I never got how more than a few % survived the travel. Maybe they had a sailor whose job was to clean all the shit.

>thinking that people let religion dominate every aspect of their lives when there was money to be made just because they lived in the 16th-19th Century
That's way too naive of you. People didn't care about whether their blacks were Christian, they cared about getting people to work their plantations. Just because the abolition movement was started by Christians doesn't mean that every single European individual and government was fundamentally opposed to slavery because of their religion.

Thanks, user. fascinating stuff. I'll Google it.

I think they did let them out on deck once every now and then. They also at least rinsed down the holds regularly, although "cleaned" would probably be an exaggeration.

>blacks take slaves from defeated tribes and kingdoms like any other culture
>muslims and whites expand their trade routes into Africa and want to buy slaves in exchange for their amazing futuristic technology
>merchants, kings, etc. realise that if they supply more slaves they can have more guns and gold, which lets them conquer more people and sell more slaves for even more wealth
Saying that the action of the political and economic elite was somehow ingrained in the entirety of "black culture" is ridiculous. Do you think that a British farmer in the 16th century was a willing accomplice in the slave trade because some of his wealthier countrymen owned and sold slaves?

Businesses don't care, people care.

>like any other culture
Excuse me? Where the fuck do you come from? Who edit your history books?

Our traders never proposed millions of Christian slaves to the sailors of other parts of the world. This is not a thing we do, or if it matter, than any one but blacks do.

The common man had no say in the slave trade thing, he hated the idea and if e lived in the colonies it ruined his life.
The common man had no say in the colonial thing either. While it was Germinal here, all the money of the republic went to Africa to teach them our ways. You think my ancestors approved that?

Unless you're talking in Nick Landian hyper-babble, a business is just a collection of people. The same "argument" doesn't explain why individual Christian plantation owners bought slaves despite the fact it was prohibited.

Please explain to me how your special snowflake culture never practiced slavery at one point in its history ESL-kun.

Oyo , Dahomy, and the other West African Slaver kingdoms' dominant economic activity was the subjegation and sale of neighboring tribes. Not all Africans come from these tribes, and certainly not those who were enslaved, but any reparations scheme would need to include these groups as Debtors.

You have a 70 year old guy who smoked some marijuana in his youth and a 70 year old bum who did LDS and heroin every day of his life since he is 10.

You can say: Both of you did drugs, it is technically true, but you simply can't compare the two.

Drug cartel tier mental gymnastics.

>Our traders never proposed millions of Christian slaves
Thence your problem. You're comparing christian identity to 'black' identity, which did not fucking exist in Africa. Selling the cunt from the next kingdom was the same as the romans selling the gauls to near eastern traders.
Niggers didn't quite mass enslave their own tribesmen either (for the most part, there were a few cases of that too, but then so there were for other cultures).

Fucking reprehensible, isn't it?

All those niggers laying around doing nothing instead of rowing the damn boat with an oar the way they should have been.

I'm not sure why you are even simply accepting the claim Christianity prohibits slavery. Far from it, the bible accepts slavery and in the debates over abolition the anti-abolitionists were the winners in theological arguments.

The Church of England literally owned slaves and made a whole tonne of money from it. They used to brand their slaves with "society" as a mark.

You can't base an entire economy on selling slaves.

What is the point of the comparison to drug users and dealers? How is it relevant to the discussion?

Fair point.

Christian traders never proposed millions of pagan slaves to sell.

>rowing the damn boat
Nigga they had perfectly good sails for that. Having them row is slower and would have forced the slavers to feed and water the slaves more to keep them alive and rowing.

>Christian traders never proposed millions of pagan slaves
Are you seriously gonna bother with this argument? Being one step removed from the actual gathering of slaves doesn't distance the atlantic slavers from the act.

The first testament come from another age and a discussion about the followers of this book is probably happening on /pol/. I am sure they will be happy to give you a link between these religion and the start of the slave trade.

The christian religion, or more precisely, the relatively similar cultures of Europe who found unity in the christianism did not practiced slavery on a large scale until the discovery of the Americas.

Notice your church ave been created at this point of time so it would fit the needs of the time.

>Oy vey! Oars are expensive, plus we'd have to spend more shekels to feed the schwartz goyim!

Who could be behind this post?

The triangular slave trade is just one part of our history made by a small number of merchands.

It's not like our entire culture and traditions revolve around it.

We were against slavery before, we are against slavery since.

We are the one who did the less slavery, we are the ones who fought slavery, and we are the only one blamed for slavery?

Give me a break and be revolted about the entire armies of Chinese forced labourer.

I didn't make a connection between Christianity and the start of the slave trade, that is just a strawman. I said Christianity does not prohibit slavery, which is pretty undeniable.

>relatively similar cultures of Europe who found unity in the christianism did not practiced slavery on a large scale until the discovery of the Americas.
Alright what was the Roman Empire?
The Viking Slave trade?
Feudal bondsmen and serfs?
Domestic servants that received no pay and where prohibited from seeking other employment?

Again, the cultures of western Europe, and to some extend to eastern Europe who found unity in religion did not institutionalised slavery, even if the religious teaching were not explicitly forbidding it.

It would probably have been different if, like with another religion, the sacred book said you can take war prisoners as slaves.

>what was the Roman Empire?
Murdered 1/6 of my ancestors and took another 1/6 as slaves.

>The Viking Slave trade?
Took some of my ancestors as slaves. Pillaged some others.

>Feudal bondsmen and serfs?
Not slavery, and my ancestors were the serfs.

I am probably not the good person to ask for reparation mony and I will not feel guilty about slavery.

>We are the one who did the less slavery, we are the ones who fought slavery, and we are the only one blamed for slavery?
>Give me a break and be revolted about the entire armies of Chinese forced labourer.
Ok listen here buddy. First of all, as far as I'm concerned the whole sins of the father bullshit needs to go, so don't bother, you're preaching to the choir.
And certainly western culture was by far the most concerned and most influential in abolishing (or attempting to abolish, since there's still plenty of slavery going around) slavery.
That said. You can't really mention 'forced-labourers-who-aren't-stricly-speaking-slaves' in China and not expect me to mention manorial serfdom in Europe.
Good luck trying to prove that serfdom wasn't a pillar of feudal society.

>The triangular slave trade is just one part of our history made by a small number of merchands.
Yeah, but it's not like it was the only example of european slavery. Even discounting stuff like serfdom and pre-christian slavery, there are still plenty of examples. Italian merchants for example were very big on acting as middlemen between mongols enslaving slavs and turks/middle easterners looking to buy. Spaniards outright enslaved plenty of moors during the reconquista. The north african coast got raided by christians on the semi-regular, and while it was generally reprisal against piracy, it still ended up with berber women in southern european brothels.
Going back to the early middle ages, you have basically germs trying to enslave everything they can, up until everyone is christianized and becomes off limits.
My point here is that slave trade isn't a big part of european history more due to cultural unity and lack of opportunities (due to the inward looking nature of the continent's politics before colonialism) than any real moral reason. On the borders, where opportunity was present, it happened a lot.

So essentially I make a post stating Christianity doesn't prohibit slavery and you respond by agreeing with me and then trying, again, to argue against something I didn't say.

Great job, user, real smooth.

It would have saved you time to post "you're right".

So the Europeans who did practice slavery are magical excluded from your special group of "relatively similar cultures of Europe who found unity in the christianism" because they happen to be your ancestors.

The serfdom in Easter Europe is for me a form of slavery, but it is different from the work-or-I-kill-you slavery as praciced with the forced labourers. At least the serfs had some freedom in their situation.

The Roman Empire is in the antiquity. The pagan Norse was still unchristianised back then. The serfdom happened thousand of kilometres from my homeland.

You're forgetting that the Romans and Vikings both continued taking slaves after they became Christians, and do you really think that your own froggie fedualism is somehow different from serfdom because it has a different way and your culture romanticises it a bit more?
Even if I let that slide, why are all Africans to blame for selling other blacks into slavery, but you can't be blamed for the crimes of your fellow haplotype sharing Europeans?

Tell me about it.
If they had their legs and heads interlocked correctly they could fit ~13% more. And that is just with a preliminary space model I worked out just now on paper.
I mean they got a high packing density, but it could be noticeably higher while still keeping the product alive if they actually planned this out more carefully.
I would need to actually take time to workout the air flow rates for cooling and prevent suffocation among other variables my model doesn't include currently, but I am sure I could make some significant improvements.
If I had the time I could take it a step further and create personalized product profiles in MATLAB to allow for higher optimization based on the individual traits of the cargo, and even the time of year.

No wonder slavery ended, they couldn't keep a business running with those kinds of inefficiencies today.

My culture call that time the dark age.

I do admit our general genotype made some slavery, but we did it less than others and did more to end it.

Once other people, starting with African American admit the fault of their own people instead of trying to shame us for the lesser fault our side did, I will cool down.

Right now I am on the defensive because I am attacked.

See

>Once other people start behaving fairly but inconveniently for them for no reasons other than to soothe my ego I will cool down.
user let's not go down this road.

Let's.

The Muslim slave trade was much worse than the Atlantic slave trade. Indians and Chinese did horrible things too, and the Mongol empire dominate the game. The moral outrage focus only on one. I say this is a very partial view of history, and it is created and used to promote a political agenda.

Call me all the names you want, I think history should not be used the way it is.

>Implying LSD(?) is some kind of hardcore drug

>I think history should not be used the way it is.
And I think you're being silly and naive. Everything is used to further agendas, why not history? In fact, the vast majority of historians wrote explicitly to further their or their patron's political agenda.
I mean, I presume you're white and you rightly despise the niggers' agenda, but are they really wrong in doing what works for them? I find far more troublesome the fact that whites listen to them in the first place. Now that's something worth getting up in arms about. It's downright masochistic.

>You can't base an entire economy on selling slaves.
That's where you're wrong kiddo.

I didn't say just selling slaves. They kept most of them around in the fields and as manual laborers. It's not the most stable societal model in the long run, normally because neighboring subjects will eventually cooperate to overthrow their oppressor, but a few groups have made it work for a few generations. Iirc guns and horses allowed these groups enough of an edge that only the Europeans were able to finally supplant these states in the 1800s.

Call me an idealist but I think soft science is still science and political/societal agenda should be banned from it.

If someone want to rewrite history to say he wus kang and all, he is an obscurantist and an enemy of mankind.

>the dark age.
Are you English?

Shoulda coulda woulda.
And top kek at the idea that hard sciences aren't politicized. Unless you consider medicine and biology and any branch of the natural sciences that relates to humans or the environment as 'soft sciences'.
The only stuff that isn't politicized is the stuff that lacks angles to exploit.

I was born in Saudi Arabia but I identify as French even though I have only visit there. I live in Ceuta so that makes me European as I have a long term visa.

Not him, but dark ages (and literal translations) is a term used throughout the whole west.
>secoli bui
>anos oscuros
>age sombre
>dunkle jahunderte

This is the wikipedia page about the Medieval Dark Age:
>L'article Âge sombre (Moyen Âge) n'existe pas encore. Comment faire pour le créer ?

I can't speak French.

>Als dunkle Jahrhunderte oder dunkles Zeitalter (engl. Dark Ages)
>En historiographie, le terme Âge sombre ou Âges sombres (Dark Ages en anglais)
So two examples which include the English term, suggesting that it may come from that language.

>secoli bui
>anos oscuros
And then Petrarch´s about Latin literature.

What point are you even trying to make? It's a fact that dark ages is a term widely used in all Europe.
Even the self confessed arab, who has no reason to know it from his ethnocentric point of view, knows and uses it.
You may argue, like indeed many historians do, that it's a misleading and inaccurate term. But you can't argue that it exists and is widespread beyond the anglosphere.

My point is that it´s far from being widely used in Europe.
It´s widely used in English, but the fact that the French and German versions included the English term in the very first lines seem to imply that they have imported the concept of "Dark Age" from the English language.

The Spanish and Italian pages make it pretty clear that they are driking from Petrarch´s work.

And last, but not least, "Dark Age[s]" is widely used when talking about a certain Ancient Greek history period, as a quick Wikipedia search shows.

Look dude, the first link on wiki's dark ages disambiguation page is to the middle ages.
You have a pseudo-french and an italian (me) here in this thread using it and confirming that it's a widely used term.
You have pointed out that there's a non english origin for the term (the english term dark ages comes from Petrarch just like the italian and spanish version).
What exactly are you trying to prove?

He sounds like he's from reddit. He needs to show off how much he knows (no matter how flawed his information) by trying to argue against something you didn't say.

Sorry if a French who does not speak French does not convince me about the ussage of the term.
If you say that Italians widely use seculi bui as the English use Dark Ages, I have to believe you.

I am French and everyone in France know l'age sombre ou l'age noir refer to the middle age.

In fact, we are the ones who called it this way first so the enlightenment movement seem necessary. "Everyone back then was extremely religious and superstitious and afraid of everything all the time for no reasons and the taxes were heavy and they worked from dawn to dusk".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

ikr, it even says on the OP pic
"Stowage of the Western European Caliphate"

This man, for example, was born a slave in Spain. He was freed by the painter Velasquez after mixing his paints for twenty years. It is hard to deny that Spain was christian as shit all through the middle ages, and also hard to deny slavery was common in Spain all through the middle ages.