Why we never learn about the muslim slave trade at school even when they captured millions of africans and europeans...

Because its not relevant. We don't learn about the american slave trade either, because its not relevant to us.
There is plenty of history and too little time in school to teach it all.

>why does this class that is only an hour or two a week at best, not cover the entire history of every single culture and period

Because it goes against the narrative that non whites morally just victims.

It was exactly that you braindead anglo cunt.

>Surely this is ((their)) doing

No racism?! Well then carry on with the chains and whatnot :^)

>Why we never learn about the muslim

Stop right there. They haven't been relevant since Suleiman.

...

You want them to be mentioned for what aboutism, nothing more.

t. has never read what muslim intellectuals (lol) said on noggers

>Because it wasn't racial specific chattel slavery

Yes it fucking was you retard.

Because Semites control most curricula, and rarely speak bad about their co-Semites.

And award for dumbest mother fucker goes to *Drum-roll please* . . . 331059 . . . 2!!!

This. Gotta laugh in the face of any brainwashed retard that suggests Europeans invented racism.

Because we aren't taught about Muslim anything. In the US at least, history classes are a narrative starting with ancient Athenian democracy ultimately culminating in American democracy. The European slave trade fits in the narrative, the Muslim trade doesn't.

Oh sorry I mean ITS WHITE GENOCIDE

>Because it wasn't racial specific
Yes it fucking was you absolute moron, Arabs saw blacks as inferior infidels. Even when they converted to Islam they were treated as inferior.
>chattel slavery
It was literal chattel slavery. Do you even know what chattel slavery is? Although they did cut their male slaves' balls off, so no kiddies born into it (that weren't haldf Arab rape babies), if that's what you meant.
The Arabs were arguably more brutal than the Europeans in nearly every way.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion

Why aren't Arabs ever forced to apologize for slavery?

Why should they? Arabs have the right attitude, here.
It's the American 'sorry for sharing the skin tone of your great great great great great grandfather's opressor' mindset that's retarded.

We went over the Islamic Golden age in World History and the Arab slave trade was never mentioned (and yes, I went to an American public school in the mid-west)

>Oh sorry I mean ITS WHITE GENOCIDE

It is though,

Sure, they did it out of pure philanthropy.

dat boipussy though

For the same reason why they don't you about the bronze age empires in Mesopotamia. It's not in our region so not considered our history

it isn't relevant to the majority of school students in the United States
I don't know about England or Sweden, though, they might have to start teaching about that there

>middle eastern countries should have and not western ones
>implying it's bad to learn about the history of all peoples

>Why we never learn about muslim slave trade? Goddamn liberals!
>Why do we have to learn about muslims in America? Goddamn liberals!

I hate people like you user, you probably think you are morally superior to others when you are literally a slavery apologist. You are NO different from dixieboos who say shit like "blacks were better under slavery!"

fuck you

When has anyone ever forced you to apologize for slavery?

It wasn't that influential in global politics.

One had minor revolts, the other lead to a bloody civil war that changed the direction of the most powerful nation on earth.

>a bloody civil war that changed the direction of the most powerful nation on earth
There has been no civil war in UK.

>u haffta pay reparations

Because that's what university is for, it's the states job to give you an education in preparation for higher learning, not to teach you every fucking thing that ever happened

>Be private schooled
>mfw the priests actually taught us world history.
It was some Jesuit university. My parents were Catholic.

Was really a surprise to know that public schooled peeps really start history edumacation with the Pilgrims.

>Negroes accept slavery
>they frequently eat each other
>many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the negro and more intelligent
>they eat people
>they have no notion of a natural death
hmmmm

came here to post this

So, if you don't call them niggers, it's cool to own slaves?
really makes you think

No it was not you fucking crybabies, as said slavery in the muslim world was not based on race

>b-but muh ibn khaldun quote about negroe nations being submissive to slavery
It's descriptive not prescriptive you demi-litterate brainlets, arabs did enslave people of every race regardless, they didn't need justifications

>b-b-but muh curse of ham
This idea originate from jewish thology and never made any kind of consensus in the muslim world

Because you ameritards are a bunch of cucks

Because unlike you they are not interrested in self-cucking

it was religious specific chattel slavery. where it was cool to have slaves as long as they weren't muslim. because that is all the non believers are good for.

>Why we never learn about the muslim slave trade at school even when they captured millions of africans and europeans for more than ten centuries?
Because Muslim countries are irrelevant and their social problems are of no concern to any of us. The race divide in America however is important.

>black president
>black, jew, hispanic supreme court justices
>every flavor of person but native american and pacific islander is in congress.

Not even, non-muslims living in muslim lands could not be made slave and conversion to islam does not remove the status of slave.

Because it's not directly relevant to American history. It should absolutely be taught in world history classes though

White supremacist propaganda

See you reddit piece of slime.

We do learn about the Muslim slave trade; it was the basis of the Barbary War covered by all high school history classes.

School curriculums rarely lend the same attention to Middle Eastern slavery as they do Atlantic slavery because does not have anywhere near the same relevance to American history and society. There is also not any present-day population of Americans who are descended from Middle Eastern slaves.

But none of this matters because you're trying to push the agenda that Atlantic slavery wasn't that bad if Muslims did it too.

>It's not directly relevant to American history
>What is the fucking Barbary War

I mean Jesus Christ, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
Why do you bend over backwards to avoid speaking ill of Muslims?

The Ottoman Empire apologized by literally being ripped apart.

Nobody you quoted said anything about slavery being good when non-racist it you pathetic moralfag.

>But none of this matters because you're trying to push the agenda that Atlantic slavery wasn't that bad if Muslims did it too.

And he's right to do so.
If the equally as large Muslim slave trade that oppressed all races isn't worth talking about, then the Atlantic slave trade most certainly isn't worth talking about either.

>anime reaction images

cringe.

This ain't 2009

>whatabouting this hard

>Because history class usually covers the own nation's history.

But the muslim slave trade enslaved people from my country? Why do I get taught about the people from my country who traded slaves, but not those who got enslaved?

Both are absolutely worth discussing, but history classes lend unfortunately little attention to non-American affairs thanks to the blatant and unacceptably narrow scope of our history education, mostly driven by conservative state lawmakers who oppose expanding our liberal arts curriculum.

This is why most Americans don't know what the Byzantine Empire is and think the word socialism means "a powerful government".

Yet people in the US learn about how Gambian slaves were shipped to Cuba by Dutch sailors?

>What is the fucking Barbary War
Maghrebi states being agressed by greedy anglos who didn't want to pay customs duties when entering the mediteranean sea.

Yes they did? What kind of retardo school did you go to?

Yeah, cause that same economic relation was the basis for American economic power up until the Civil War, a nearly apocalyptic conflict fought to preserve this relationship. Now, there are 40 million who are only in this country because of this relationship.

>demi-litterate
What did mean by this?

>unironically use the word cringe
>has a problem with anime
>is still posting on a tibetan anime imageboard. You should go back to rebbit friendo

>he can't even greentext properly

inb4 I was pretending to be retarded

Litterate enough to have a faint idea of arabs saying mean things about blacks during the middle age, but not cultured enough to know what it was or what it meant.
And really here litterate enough is just having read some quote on Veeky Forums 3 weeks ago.

Hey everybody makes mistakes buddy

Are you aware that Cuba is not in the US?

Are you aware that the transactional relationship of Cuban and American slaveholders with slave-traders was effectively identical, and that most slaves in the US came through the Caribbean?

Either both are awful and worth discussing or neither are.

But one is part of American history and the other one isn't. Unless you are willing to invest so much in education to teach students all those shit then sure, but one definitely takes priority over the other

>It's the fault of conservative state law-makers that I place a higher priority on teaching an anti-Western narrative of history than a narrative that places events in their proper historical context.
K

>most slaves in the US came through the Caribbean

sauce on that?

It's my understanding that the slaves in the Deep South (which were the majority) came from the Caribbean, while most of the slaves that served in the Northeast down to the Carolinas were directly African sourced.

>everyone on Veeky Forums is american

kill yourself retard

What the fuck are you even talking about with "investment"?
Throwing money at the problem doesn't add more hours to the day. The issue stems from educators prioritizing an anti-Western narrative over a balanced one and you don't need "mo money" to fix that, you just need to revise the curriculum.

Why do you never learn of Athenian, Spartan or Roman slave trade?

Feel free to ask OP if his question isn't in the context of America

>an anti-Western narrative over a balanced one
It is a narrative closet to the West so of coz they would focus on it.

You're delusional if you think spending more time on non-Western societies would facilitate a "pro Western" narrative.

A major reason why world history since 1800 is so poorly taught is because these lessons would inevitably implicate Western nations, including the USA, in various forms of colonial oppression that continue to the present. Any objective account of modern Asian and African history would necessarily appear anti-Western, because Western governments and economic interests were the primary oppressive force at the time.

Native activists like Ho Chi Minh or Gamel Abdel Nasser, who simultaneously struggled against Western domination AND the indigenous you hope to underscore, were universally opposed by Western suzerains who actually desired to uphold traditional, non-Western hierarchies to promote stability.

His experience is the same as mine, in the context of me not being a fucking American

Educators aren't prioritizing an anti-Western narrative. If they were, Western abuses of other nations would actually be discussed!

Some teachers are very progressive and seek to shed light on lesser-known hierarchies and forms of oppression within US society, but lack the professional freedom to discuss really any of the vast majority of Western or Western-backed systems of domination that existed in other countries.

One where history started in Greece, somewhere before their wars with Persia.

>shed light on lesser-known hierarchies and forms of oppression within US society

Accepting your premise, for what purpose?

None of this critical theory bullshit improves the building of bridges, provides a sound basis for understanding microeconomics, legal duty, or civic pride. It's like designing a science curriculum solely with the goal of teaching children to create toxic chemicals.

blacks could be free and slave owners in America doe

Why do people say things like this?

You are most certainly aware of the practical restraints of a curriculum, and why any educative body would give preference
to national, and sometimes local history. There are courses that touch upon this in university as I have learnt from experience,
but it is surprising to me that people seriously think that this can be fit into an already crammed lesson plan.

Are you sincerely asking why history teachers should teach history?

No undue bias is necessary to recount atrocities and hierarchies in which the American state was culpable.

But outside of Louisiana they very rarely were

>le history should try to be objective

I agree with this point in the way I would agree with socialism; if only we lived in a dream world.

The truth is, history started as a way to
remember a people's triumphs and grudges against them, at the end of the day, a lot of countries still see it that way. Trying to be objective will only lead to other countries' narrative dominating the public perception.

Please, read again and answer instead of dissembling.

>Accepting your premise, for what purpose?

Owners? Hardly matters if there wasn't a huge proportion, they could own slaves themselves and negroes could become free.

Who's going to teach it? The perpetrators? Or the people it doesn't effect? Or the slaves? Who do you think is going to stick their neck out, literally, to show that the Arabs have been slavers for 4000 years, and are ongoing slavers?

Nothing need be degraded. A more holistic and objective understanding of history is necessary to really comprehend what modernity means and how we got there.

William Ellison owned 40 slaves and 1000 acres in South Carolina.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison

Freedmen in everyone of the 13 colonies owned slaves, as well as white indentured servants

jstor.org/stable/27567319?seq=1#page_thumbnails_tab_contents

>Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves.
jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20064049?uid=3739936&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101760579761

Doesn't fit the narrative

Actually almost all of this is either specific to littoral Bantu in the land of Zanj or misquoted.

Because it's not very relevant to North American history.
Fucking retard.