The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Cambridge Slavery Inquiry Will Show We Have Plenty to Feel Guilty for
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The outrage expressed by various establishment figures and institutions at the decision by Cambridge University to hold a two-year inquiry into its historic links to the slave trade demonstrates the continuing sensitivity and relevance of the topic.

Critics of the inquiry claim that such focus on slavery is simply bowing to a trend, the suggestion being that there is little to be regretted and to apologise for. The Times has a leader with the flippant title “Slave to Fashion”, quoting with approval the conservative historian Elie Kedourie as saying that a common fault of the great powers is “imaginary guilt”.

A clutch of letters in the same newspaper make similar claims about the inquiry, one writer wondering if the issue is being raised “at a time when western mistreatment of the ‘colonised’ is news”. Others believe that much can be excused because racist opinions were common in the past, citing Charles Darwin as an example. Alternatively, they imply that the question of the slave trade has no more contemporary relevance than Britons enslaved during the Roman occupation of Britain or the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII.

The very volume and venom of the abuse of Cambridge over its inquiry is proof, if such were needed, that the British role in the slave trade remains a highly contentious topic which stirs deep feelings. Of course, it is splendidly, if absurdly, self-contradictory for commentators who accuse Cambridge of unnecessarily raising a dead issue to then write thousands of furious words arguing why Britain’s role in the slave trade has no significance in the modern world. An explanation for the near-hysterical reaction is probably that the critics view Britain’s past role in the world as benign and respond with hostility to anybody they see as besmirching it. A fallback position for them is to say that, bad though slavery may have been, it all happened a long time ago so why rake up dead embers of the past?

This defensive gambit depends rather on those who it aims to convince to be ill-informed about the horrors of slavery and unable to understand why it has left a living legacy with profound influence on the contemporary world.

One way of evoking the terrible evils of slavery is to remember that its crimes were repeated very recently by Isis when they enslaved, raped and murdered thousands of members of the Yazidi community whom they had captured in Iraq in 2014.

Conditions endured on the slave plantations of the Caribbean and the American South were very similar to those suffered by the Yazidis. It is an insult, explained but not excused by ignorance, to pretend that Cambridge’s concern about who benefited from their sufferings is a whim of fashion, as irrelevant as the policies of the Roman emperors or Henry VIII.

One of the best-informed and most shocking contemporary accounts of the true nature of slavery in the eighteenth century is by James Ramsay, a Scottish surgeon formerly in the Royal Navy who became a clergyman in St Kitts and Nevis where he treated slaves on the sugar plantations. I first heard about him and started to read his writings some twelve years ago when a relative told me that Ramsay was my direct ancestor seven generations back. He had spent 19 years in St Kitts before returning to England where he wrote in detail about the appalling conditions of the slaves in a book, which he published in 1784 with the deceptively mild title “An Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies.” It was widely read, the Dictionary of National Biography calling Ramsay “the single most important influence in the abolition of the slave trade”.

He is convincing because he was an expert eyewitness for many years to the merciless savagery with which the slaves on the sugar plantations were mistreated. He wrote how “a half-starved negro, may, for breaking a single cane, which probably he himself has planted, be hacked to pieces with a cutlass”. He speaks of his anguish at being able to do so little to help the half-starved over-worked men, women and children dressed in rags who were forced to work in the cane fields. He describes how a cart whip wielded by an experienced slave driver “cuts out flakes of skin and flesh with ever stroke”.

The book gives an account of the relentless routine of over-work and punishment on the plantations, where slaves were worked until they died or were disabled. Ramsay writes that “the discipline of the plantation is exact as that of a regiment; at four o’clock in the morning the plantation bell rings to call the slaves into the fields.”

The slaves, who were bought for £60 each, would then work for 16 hours or more to cut the cane, bring it to the mill and boil it until it turned into sugar. Every so often, the machinery in the mill “grinds off a hand, or an arm, of those drowsy worn down creatures”.

The punishment inflicted on slaves on the British-owned plantations in the Caribbean were all too similar to the way in which Isis murdered or mutilated their Yazidi slaves.

One surgeon was asked by a judge to amputate the limb of a slave but refused to do so according to Ramsay, answering “that he was not obliged to be the instrument of another man’s cruelty. His Honour then had it performed by a cooper’s adze, and the wretch was then left to bleed to death, without attention or dressing.”

Isis notoriously raped and sold as sex-slaves Yazidi women and this again was a feature of plantation life on St Kitts. Ramsay says that slave women were “sacrificed to the lust of white men; in some instances, their own fathers”, while their mistresses earned pin-money by hiring out as prostitutes the slave girls who tended them.

It is worth appreciating, when watching a romanticised view of slavery in a film like Gone with the Wind, that a real life Scarlett O’Hara on a slave plantation might be supplementing her income by hiring out her female slave for sex.

ORDER IT NOW

Ramsay was born in 1733 in Fraserburgh near Aberdeen and had trained as a doctor and then joined the Royal Navy as a surgeon. He first saw slavery up close in 1759 when the man-of-war he was on boarded a slave ship called The Swift sailing from Africa to Barbados. Boarding the vessel, he was appalled to find 100 sick slaves lying in a mixture of blood, vomit and excreta.

On his return to Britain, Ramsay trained as an Anglican clergyman and three years later took over two livings in St Kitts. The plantation owners welcomed his skills as a doctor but were enraged to discover that he opposed slavery and allowed slaves into his church. Strongly supported by friends in the navy, he remained in St Kitts until 1781 when he returned to Britain where he became the vicar of a small church in Teston outside Maidstone in Kent where he wrote his book.

Contrary to the claims by the present-day critics of the Cambridge inquiry that racist views on slaves were all pervasive in the past, Ramsay wrote that in terms of intellect slaves “show no signs of inferiority to Europeans.” There is plenty of guilt for the inquiry to explore, none of it imaginary.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness, Slavery 
Hide 116 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Sean says:

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/looking-back-over-2013/

    From Slavs to slaves. Part II). The existence of this trade is little known even among the well-educated, who typically react with disbelief. Surely those white slaves were fewer in number than the black slaves taken across the Atlantic. And surely all of that happened long before the Atlantic slave trade.

    Wrong on both counts. Europe exported about as many slaves to the non-European world as were exported from Africa to the Americas. Eastern Europeans continued to be “harvested” until the mid-1700s and the population of the Caucasus until the mid-1800s. By comparison, the black slave trade was banned within the British Empire in 1807 and throughout the Western Hemisphere by the 1860s. The difference was qualitative and not quantitative. Black slaves were mostly male; white slaves mostly female.

    In the run up to the English Civil War Barbary coast pirates were raiding England for slaves: white slaves.

    Glad to see you are not repeating the Irish slaves myth that Irish people were enslaved after the Cromwellian invasion of Ireland in 1649, and hence the Irish taken to the Caribbean and Virginia and sold as indentured labourers for early Caribbean and Virginia plantations were were not in effect slaves like the black who worked alongside them, nor were Irish women indentured labourers used against their will as breeding stock with Africans (to produce children who by virtue of half African ancestry were slaves) as falsely claimed by Sean O’Callahan in his book To Hell Or Barbados. Mulattoes were not overseers over the Irish. And those planters buying the indentures of Irish people did not, as O’Callahan lyingly claimed, have no incentive to keep the Irish alive and healthy beyond the period when their contracted indenture ended.

    Irish people benefitted from the African trade, as slave merchants, factors, investors, and owners. According to historian Nini Rodgers, “every group in Ireland produced merchants who benefited from the slave trade and the expanding slave colonies.” [9] Unlike Irish indentured servants, enslaved Africans generally were made slaves for life and slave status was imposed on their children at birth.[3] Both systematically and legally, Africans were subjected to a lifelong, heritable slavery that the Irish never were.[5] African slaves’ future descendants became property—legally, like livestock

    It must also be true that O’Callahan wrong is saying that Irish were in some ways worse treated because as Catholics they were not regarded as Christians and unlike blacks not permitted to attend Church. The Irish formerly not being treated better than blacks has become a bit risky to talk about. Safer to talk about Yazidis.

  2. Slavery was necessary in the 18th century for national security considerations. The revenue from the goods imported from the plantations were fiscally important for the British state, and the sailors employed in merchant trade were an important source of personnel for the Royal navy in wartime. Unilateral withdrawal from slave-based plantation economies would have meant a fatal weakening of British power in competition with continental rivals, especially France (which of course also ran a highly lucrative slave colony in Haiti), and could ultimately have led to defeat in war and invasion. The Caribbean plantations could only be operated with slave labour, and they were too important for reasons of state to simply give up.
    Abolition only became viable after Britain had destroyed the navies of all its imperial rivals in the Napoleonic wars and conquered many of their colonial possessions, ending the power contest in which slave-based plantation economies had been so important. And to their credit, the British did turn away from slavery at that point.
    Of course one shouldn’t forget the immeasurable cruelty and huge loss of life transatlantic slavery entailed in which hundreds of thousands, or even millions of slaves were literally worked to death (the comparison with ISIS and its sex slaves is pretty stupid though…the Gulag or forced labour in Nazi Germany might be more relevant). But this sanctimonious moralizing is just tiresome. Worse, the focus on slavery and real or alleged colonial crimes is part of the push for the dispossession and marginalization of the native white British population…just another pretext for “people of color” to hate and attack the white man.

    • Replies: @Endgame Napoleon
    , @Alden
  3. BuelahMan says:

    I wonder if I should feel guilty with Patrick, simply because of some English heritage, even though I can show that my lineage not only did NOT own slaves in NC or AL, but were totally against it because it lowered wages keeping them poor?

  4. What does this have to do with Cambridge? And why now? It was a common observation a century ago that political figures in the Balkans blamed everything on the Turks — as they ignored the Turks n instead fought each other. Just as today any time anything goes wrong in SSAfrica, the safest approach for a black politician is not to openly attack a black rival, but to blame everything on a barely remembered white colonialism.

    Slavery was world-wide in the 18th century n was cruel everywhere it was practiced. Only in societies that had large-scale peasant agriculture was slavery rare because it was unnecessary: Europe, Russia, Balkans, Anatolia, China, India. But even those societies were far from democratic. They were strongly hierarchical with virtually zero rights in the modern sense adhering to the bottom classes. So-called indentured servants usually were not treated any better than actual slaves because indentured servants cost less n were more easily replaced.

    Masters everywhere n in every society had the right to physically punish the disobedient by almost whatever means they felt necessary to make their point: whether it was servants, slaves, employees, sailors, peasants, soldiers, n even children n wives. This included whipping, scarring, keelhauling, or tying them in uncomfortable positions for days at a time until they submitted. In much of the world there was no genuine difference at all between ‘servants’ n ‘slaves’. In the Islamic world, they even had the same word for both: abd.

    The Cambridge initiative tells us much more about the current state of self-castigation among its students than it does about the ancient history of slavery. Such ‘investigations’ are always diversions to distract attention from some power grab that is happening now. The more emotion involved in the ‘investigation’ (the outcome of which is always fore-ordained), the more complete the cover. The real question is Whose interest is being served by the power grab?

    • Agree: fnn
  5. Others believe that much can be excused because racist opinions were common in the past, citing Charles Darwin as an example.

    How long do you all think it will be before old Darwin himself gets Watsoned? How long will it be before the media ‘discover’ that he had some precocious female lab-assistant on board The Beagle who really came up with all of his best ideas? I mean, at the rate we’re going, it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened tomorrow.

    One way of evoking the terrible evils of slavery is to remember that its crimes were repeated very recently by Isis when they enslaved, raped and murdered thousands of members of the Yazidi community whom they had captured in Iraq in 2014 … Conditions endured on the slave plantations of the Caribbean and the American South were very similar to those suffered by the Yazidis.

    Very similar? With at least one major difference — a difference of about 150 years! Slavery ended in the Anglo-Saxon realm in 1868 with the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. So why does it seem that the farther away we get from slavery in time, the more “relevant” it keeps getting?

    And what about the Moorish enslavement of the negroes? Weren’t the Moors the ones who taught the Spanish and the Portuguese all about the slave markets of W. Africa? And how about the enslavement of Ukrainians and other whites by the Ottoman Empire? Is all that still “relevant” too? Maybe we ought to demand reparations from the Turks!

    • Replies: @Lo
  6. Conditions endured on the slave plantations of the Caribbean and the American South were very similar to those suffered by the Yazidis.

    Conditions in the South were certainly materially better than in Africa and probably materially better than those of many European peasants at the time.

    https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/slavery-in-the-united-states/

    only 1.2 percent of the former slaves interviewed by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s reported being raped by a master, only 5.8 percent reported hearing about the rape of another slave, and only 4.5 said that one of their parents had been white. According to Fogel and Engerman [Time on the Cross, 1974], all of the available evidence taken together indicates that the ‘share of Negro children fathered by whites on slave plantations probably averaged between 1 and 2 percent.’

    Do you think that surveys administered by those who liberated Yazidi women would report that only 5.8% of them had even heard of rape of another slave?

    • Replies: @JessicaR
    , @Logan
  7. Lo says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    What other whites are you referring to? Two main streams of slaves were Africa and the other was Crimea. That being said, there are fundamental differences between the purposes and treatments of slaves in the Ottoman Empire and Western Europe & Americas. For one, it was a simple social status issue. Being slave in the Ottoman Empire didn’t automatically mean one was less than a human and an object to be abused for sure, slaves often were just domestic servants, ate with their masters from the same table, were not overworked till they expired, and were treated like family members in many instances. You couldn’t just kill or maim a slave for fun, as consideration was that slaves were humans who just happened to slaves, rather than subhumans who were less than humans. That’s the fundamental difference. To be fair, the Catholic church did not support slavery and considered slaves to be human as well but its opinion was not taken seriously. One look into Congo & rubber plantations is enough to see the fundamental difference in approach.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  8. Mr. Grey says:

    The argument against flagellating oneself about the slave trade is that it only works in one direction- to highlight the evil of Europeans while neglecting the very important point that it was muslims and africans that started the slave trade, and were quite happy to sell their captives to the Europeans. Other folks have commented here about the the Muslim raids on Christian lands across the Mediterranean, lasting for over 1,000 years so I won’t go into that. Patrick Coburn is a good source of information about the middle east, but he needs to stop bending over for leftwing social justice nonsense, which is out of control in Britain.

    • Replies: @Wally
  9. @Sean

    You ignore the fact that it was the Jews who were heavily invested in the African slave trade slave. Dr. Tony Martin was pilloried for is research on that topic, which he, himself, stated opened his eyes to the real story of the slave trade. Jews are “White” when convenient for them, and “Jews” when it is convenient for them.
    You also understate the reality of the Barbary Coast pirates who enslaved an estimated 2 million Europeans, more than 3 times as many as African slaves taken to continental North America in the same time period.
    Finally, some Irish, along with Scots and English, were, in fact enslaved and sent to colonies. Most came as indentured servants, just as the African slaves were, until freed Black slave, Anthony Johnson successfully sued a neighbour in 1654 or 1655, that the slave owner could determine when indenture ended, meaning slavery for life. Johnson owned 1 Black and 2 White slaves.

    I’m with Rabbi Sacks who said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays.
    “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,”

    • Replies: @Sean
  10. Jmaie says:

    Critics of the inquiry claim that such focus on slavery is simply bowing to a trend, the suggestion being that there is little to be regretted and to apologise for.

    There is no other explanation (and the author suggested none).

    I won’t suggest that there is little to regret or apologize for. Rather I will state it categorically. Slavery ended 186 years ago, none alive today bear any responsibility. An apology for other’s actions would be nothing more than meaningless virtue signalling.

    Absolute dreck.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Dave Bowman
  11. Sean says:
    @Curmudgeon

    It’s maybe unclear that I was being sarcastic. The English were the only ones to outlaw slavery. But this historic links to the slave trade inquiry demonstrates the continuing sensitivity and relevance of ruling class pretensions of moral superiority.

    • Replies: @Alden
  12. Sean says:
    @Jmaie

    Slavery ended 186 years ago, none alive today bear any responsibility.

    Britain stopped it and suppressed the international trade by military force, which precipitated the US also banning the trade. Whites who forced other Christians and the whole Muslims world to halt slavery. The inquiry is an ideological aggression against lower class whites by elite whites.

    The stagnation of the Ottoman Empire was largely based on using special subject peoples such as Jews in high administrative positions, and taking north European female sex slaves, eg Roxelana and Helen Gloag as wives.

  13. Sean says:

    Contrary to the claims by the present-day critics of the Cambridge inquiry that racist views on slaves were all pervasive in the past, Ramsay wrote that in terms of intellect slaves “show no signs of inferiority to Europeans.”

    I wonder what he would have said if they had been Catholics (Papists).

  14. anon19 says:

    Slavery existed in all cultures, societies, peoples, etc throughout history. I don’t feel any guilt at all about something that ended the better part of 200 years ago and that I had nothing to do with. This writer is a masochist or a self-hater.

    Btw, the worls slave comes from Slav (who are white).

  15. @Lo

    Terms like ‘human’ or ‘subhuman’ came out of the European Enlightenment. The Ottomans, like the entire Islamic world, would not have recognized these terms. They thought purely in terms of Muslim, Christian, Jew, n other ‘people of the book’ who had certain rights under Islamic law, n kaffirs who were not ‘people of the book’ who had no rights under Islamic law n who could therefore be killed at will. The latter included all animist Africans.

    The Ottomans were so resistant to European ideas that they outlawed all printing presses until about 1800.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Lo
  16. Talha says:
    @Sin City Milla

    kaffirs who were not ‘people of the book’ who had no rights under Islamic law n who could therefore be killed at will. The latter included all animist Africans.

    Incorrect, check your source. The Maliki school was always operational in West African Muslim lands and has always accepted jizyah from pagans just like the Hanafi school (our school differs only with respect to Arab ones, meaning from the original tribes – they are not granted the jizyah option). If you have reliable historical evidence that West African Muslim empires went on killing sprees wiping out pagan/animist populations, please present it.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  17. Paul says:

    Africans who sold into slavery the captured members of other tribes with whom they were warring have plenty about which to feel guilty. (Traditional African practice had been to murder captives of other tribes.) If there are to be reparations, it should start at the beginning with Africans paying up.

    • Replies: @Jojo28
  18. Lo says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Exactly, and therefore, once you are able to label some as “human” and others as “subhuman” you can redefine some people as “subhuman.” Precisely because of this, ancient civilizations treated slaves better than late Europeans. And I don’t claim that only Muslims treated slaves as if they were human, but for example, in ancient Greece too they had a rather decent life, again it was a social status issue. Moreover, as I said, most slaves were domestic servants in the Ottoman Empire, people tend to treat those who live with them better, even if they don’t see them as their equals socially. Also, no, there is no such thing as treating slaves however you wish in Islam. Quite the contrary, Islam orders to treat them well even if they are not Muslims, hoping that it may encourage them to convert. References to killing animists/pagans are about wartime, not anytime and anywhere. Finally, it wasn’t due to simple opposition against European ideas that the printing press was not established until late (the first was 1728, I think) but rather there were other things going along. Calligraphy was actually a sizable business and artisans successfully lobbied against printing press for a long time with the help of clerics, so much so even after the first printing press was allowed it was banned from publishing religious books. Otherwise, in general, Turks had been generally quick to adopt useful technology especially early on. All said, Jews of empire actually had been using printing press long before “first” printing press I talked about, but that’s another topic…

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @RSDB
    , @Sin City Milla
  19. Ramsay is convincing because he was an expert eyewitness for many years to the merciless savagery with which the slaves on the sugar plantations were mistreated.

    Right, and the many ‘expert eyewitnesses’ to civilized treatment of slaves in the USA are sent right down the memory hole, and if you dare to quote any of them you are instantly ‘deplatformed’ from most online services. The Reverend Nehemiah Adams, a Unitarian minister and staunch abolitionist living in Boston, offered remarkable testimony, for example, and lately it’s pretty much been scrubbed from the internet.

    If you dare to quote from his accounts you are banned from Facebook, Twitter, and MSM sites–and he’s just one example. Now, have I said that slaves were treated humanely always and everywhere? Not even nearly. What I say is that the search for truth is roundly prevented if all testimony on one side of an argument is prohibited. This shouldn’t even need saying, but such is our time.

    The author of the present essay imagines that certain people should display guilt for things they never had the slightest thing to do with; I impute a political motive.

  20. Anon[360] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    And more nuttery.

  21. We Have Plenty to Feel Guilty for

    Go ahead and flog yourself in the town square all you want, Patty, but there’s no “we” here.

    • Replies: @Gordo
  22. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:

    Slavery can be found in every society. African tribes raided each other for slaves and sold them to the British, Europeans and Americans when offered the opportunity. This rehashing of history seems more about litigating history for the benefit of lawyers than about anything else. Slavery has also been found in just about every society and is still prevalent in some, so focusing on white western countries seems more about envy than anything else.

    As for the comment that “Contrary to the claims by the present-day critics of the Cambridge inquiry that racist views on slaves were all pervasive in the past, Ramsay wrote that in terms of intellect slaves “show no signs of inferiority to Europeans,” no doubt that explains the high civilization that Africans have invented and all their contributions to modern society – you know – physics, math, chemistry, the internet, computers, cell phones, etc. etc. etc.

  23. @Sean

    Barbadosed is descriptive on nothing, I guess. And the kid nabbing (later, kidnapping) gangs that met daily in St Paul’s Cathedral was just a rumor.

    And America having had more white slaves than black ones is another myth that must be denied so that the sacred negro myth survives

  24. Talha says:
    @Lo

    Calligraphy was actually a sizable business and artisans successfully lobbied against printing press for a long time with the help of clerics

    Excellent point. Most people are unaware that the people of the Ottoman Empire were quite literate compared to many European populations at the advent of the printing press. Books were all hand copied. Scribes numbered in the thousands and there were powerful guilds to deal with. Many, many would have lost their means of livelihood within months. Imagine if AI-driven lorry trucks hit the market tomorrow and replaced all truckers.

    Turks had been generally quick to adopt useful technology especially early on

    Indeed, especially military technology – the capture of Constantinople would have not been possible without the massive cannons.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @Alden
  25. RSDB says:
    @Lo

    Islam orders to treat them well even if they are not Muslims

    Well, fair enough, but the same is true of Christianity, and that didn’t work out too well. Slave narratives from the Barbary Coast don’t exactly paint a very rosy picture on the whole.

    • Replies: @Lo
    , @Talha
  26. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    The Church maintained an Index of Prohibited Books roughly from the early era of printing to the twentieth century. It’s hard for us now to realize just how much printing changed society.

    Of course, for most of that time there were generally enough loopholes that people who really wanted to could read them without (well, apart from any unrelated sinful motive) incurring sin.

    I wonder if Arabic was also harder to print with early technology? I really don’t know the answer to this one, probably Arabic-speakers will. But anyone who knows just how arduous math proofing was before Knuth has some idea of the limitations of even very modern mechanical printing technology.

    military technology

    Has anyone ever been able to stop military technology? We prohibit gas and draw back in horror from using nukes, but that doesn’t stop countries from developing chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons as best they can.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Lo
  27. Lo says:
    @RSDB

    There are more direct orders in Islam with regards to slaves, whereas some slavers even referred to Bible to justify slavery (Bible says sons of Ham were cursed to be slaves of others). There aren’t many records to understand exactly how slavery worked on a day to day basis, but there are many incidents of slaves rising up to become high status after being freed, some slaves even ended up becoming kings. I think it does show there are some significant differences between the two slavery. I will add however that there are probably differences between how Turks treated slaves vs. how Arabs treated them. In general, Turkish understanding of Islam was much more reasonable and wasn’t mixed up with some sort of racial superiority thing. Arabs have been guilty of both making religion unreasonable and mixing it up with Arab superiority, hence there are instances of slave uprisings in Arab Empires due to maltreatment, and even today Gulf Arabs treat Asian servants like crap even if the servant is Muslim.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  28. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    The Church maintained an Index of Prohibited Books

    Yeah, we didn’t have a top-down hierarchy so everything was open game, even heretical tracts could be found. Sure, certain rulers like the Al-Mohads or others attempted book destruction once in a while, but the book was already being circulated in Egypt or the Levant even if it was being quashed in Andalusia, so it would simply come back after a the rulers switched hats (or turbans as may be the case). Religious knowledge (especially) was open to everyone – there are reports of thousands of people attending the lectures of Imam Malik (ra) for instance.

    I wonder if Arabic was also harder to print with early technology?

    No doubt. And since Persian and Turkish had also being using a variation of Arabic script. The tough part is the connections as opposed to solitary print letters in Latin. Actually a good analogy would be trying to print a tract in cursive style – definitely not as easy.

    My wife and I have passed up certain printings for books we needed (I think the last one was Imam Ibn Hajar’s commentary on Bukhari) to go for one from another printer or publishing house due to legibility concerns. The other book may have been better and had more comprehensive commentary and footnotes, but if you can barely read it or it takes you twice as long to get through the text, it is not worth the time as far as I’m concerned.

    Has anyone ever been able to stop military technology?

    We should certainly attempt to do so:

    but that doesn’t stop countries from developing chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons as best they can

    Unfortunately, the last couple of decades of geopolitics has given everyone the notice; if you don’t have the capability of deterrence, you will be invaded or bombed at will unless you comply with the new world order.

    Peace.

  29. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Slave narratives from the Barbary Coast don’t exactly paint a very rosy picture on the whole.

    True – I believe the unfortunate slaves that came under their hands were probably the worst treated of all the various instances of slavery I’ve read about over the eras and regions of the Islamic world. Of course, pirates who were known to drink harder than the Irish are difficult to expect to adhere to Islamic protocols. They were also known to castrate their slaves (as opposed to buying them that way) – a clear violation of the Shariah.

    Peace.

  30. Lo says:
    @RSDB

    Yes, Arabic was harder to print especially considering all the calligraphic styles that were used in religious book writing, and the early printing press was pretty slow even with easier to shape Latin letters. Scribes were also rather effective and fast. Some technologies were adapted late (after Europeans proved the superiority of the new tech) because Turks had been pretty good at using the earlier tech; for example, it was difficult to make soldiers adopt rifles because archery technology was high quality and soldiers could shoot arrows much faster than using early rifles. Sort of like how we all mastered Q keyboard because it was early, even though it is inferior.

  31. RSDB says:
    @Lo

    some slavers even referred to Bible to justify slavery

    Note the “even” in that phrase; that is the difference between Christian and Muslim slavery.

    Would write more but have somehow triggered the edit window; maybe I’ll come back to this.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @Talha
  32. RSDB says:
    @RSDB

    Whoops, it took me a while to find this thread again.

    My point was: you make a human being the property of an unrelated human being, and the results, by and large, are not going to be good, especially if the human material for the slavemasters is poor, as in the Caribbean or the Barbary Coast. You can find plenty of accounts in the South of slaves who just loved ole’ Massa, and in ancient times you can find people like Pope Callistus who was a former slave, but in general it is not a good institution.

    It doesn’t matter what restraints you try to put on slaveholders, they are going to be broken at some point.

    Thanks to both you and Talha for the information on Arabic. I had thought along those lines, but, not being familiar with the language myself, was uncertan.

    • Replies: @Lo
  33. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    Definitely both came into a world with slavery in place and neither prohibited it. Both attempted to regulate it though to varying degrees of success.

    Peace.

  34. Talha says:

    You can find plenty of accounts in the South of slaves who just loved ole’ Massa

    This is true. One of the best accounts of a slave in the US was written in Arabic and he mentioned that one of his slave masters was an oppressive man, while another was very honorable and just and fed him and clothed him just like he did for his own family.

    but in general it is not a good institution.

    Yup, can’t disagree there.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  35. Lo says:
    @RSDB

    Yeah, definitely not a good institution. It is also true that Slavery in the South was still better than Caribbeans & colonial Africa.

    • Replies: @Talha
  36. Talha says:
    @Lo

    I’m impressed with your knowledge of Islamic history and nuances of Ottoman rule as well as Islamic regulations. Did you get this from self-study or a formal setting?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Lo
  37. MarkU says:

    So a leftist gatekeeper thinks I should feel guilty because of the actions of some rich people hundreds of years ago. Having the same colour skin makes me guilty in some way apparently. Would he suggest that Jews are collectively guilty over the actions of Israel in the present day? I very much doubt it. Patrick Cockburn can go f**k himself.

    • Agree: Alden
  38. We?

    My people fought on the side of the North.

    How about the blacks compensating us for liberating them?

    • LOL: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @Dannyboy
    , @Alden
  39. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Was that this man?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_ibn_Said

    You make good points on weapons limitations, which is longhand for saying I agree (though I don’t see the specific system in the short being too effective).

    The Index was for most of its existence something of a public utility: its purpose was to inform the faithful something along the lines: “If you’re looking for a pious and improving read, this isn’t it.” There were enough exceptions that if you had a good reason to read something you could do so without the fear of grave sin which would otherwise attach.

    (In my post above “uncertan” –> “uncertain”. I try to be literate, but it doesn’t always work.)

    • Replies: @Talha
  40. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    That was him. Another famous one had a recent documentary or film made about him recently called “Prince Among Slaves”.

    The way I feel about the whole weapons thing is that we have a moral imperative and responsibility to future generations to at least try to curb them from getting out of hand. Just because it is difficult shouldn’t mean we simply give up. I assume you’d agree there also.

    Peace.

  41. martin2 says:

    When I discovered that English men were sometimes taken as slaves (Daniel Defoe describes Robinson Crusoe spending some time as a slave in North Africa, (which of course is a work of fiction but is based on real events)), when I learned this I was dismayed, since it is humiliating for one’s own people to have been subjugated in this way.

    Then I realised the real reason that liberals and leftits endlessly go on about blacks being kept as slaves. It is just a passive aggressive way of humiliating blacks. Liberals hate blacks and will all they can to hurt their feelings.

    • Replies: @Jmaie
    , @anon
  42. I think there should be an inquiry into why Cambridge University still exists. It is one of the most massively privileged Universities on the planet with a massive tax-free endowment. This could be better used shutting down the University, selling its property for retirement housing and using the money to support indigenous British students of talent who need help.
    Rather amusingly, Cambridge have shot themselves in the foot. The report will produce the usual PC result. The Endowment Fund will not pay up ! Expect the Left to wet themselves with indignation !

    • Replies: @Alden
  43. Lo says:
    @Talha

    I just read some books. I am not a college graduate.

    • Replies: @Talha
  44. Talha says:
    @Lo

    Good stuff – I wish more people had read as well as you have. It’s been a pleasure to read your posts on these subjects.

    Peace.

  45. anon19 says:

    The Muslims, especially Arabs, were the greatest slavers of all.

    • Replies: @Talha
  46. Petrel says:

    White Cargo of 2008, by Jordan and Walsh and White Slavery in Colonial America of 2012, by Dee Masterson cover similar ground about the kidnaping, transport and selling of British citizens in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to America.

    At present estimate, some 300,000 British children and adults were swept up by British kidnapers. Life expectancy for children sent to the tobacco fields was 2 years. This terrible history spanned 170 years. By the time of the American Revolution, many surviving white slaves had fled west of the original 13 Colonies, into the hills and valleys of West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and so on, a historical reality which may explain the very different ethos of those groups.

    Today, the descendents of these white slaves may number over 47 million.

    • Replies: @Talha
  47. Talha says:
    @anon19

    If you take the picture in its entirety, this is very likely. In the pre-modern world this is how you knew immediately which society or civilization was the alpha. Muslims held that spot (in various incarnations) for a lot longer than anyone and had a huge geographic footprint.

    This meant both that; 1) slaves from the frontier territories would be a natural outcome of any wars of expansion and 2) the slave trade would naturally be attracted to its markets for the best coin (which is one of the reasons even Vikings were bringing their human cargo all the way from Northern Europe to sell in Abbasid and Byzantine realms).

    Peace.

  48. @German_reader

    It’s a convenient way to avoid discussions of 40 years of falling wages in the USA, plus jobs of diminishing quality, like temp, churn, part time and gig jobs that require a second income or welfare-covered monthly bills and refundable child tax credits to survive.

  49. Talha says:
    @Petrel

    Amazing – thanks for the references!

    Peace.

  50. eah says:

    …demonstrates the continuing sensitivity and relevance of the topic…Ramsay wrote that in terms of intellect slaves “show no signs of inferiority to Europeans.”

    “LOL” — holy shit — with hand-wringing school-marmish virtue-signaling faggots “men” like this opining and governing, no wonder the UK is such a mess — an anarcho-tyrannical police state.

    • Replies: @eah
  51. eah says:
    @eah

    It’s not proper gentlemen like Mr Patrick Cockburn who pay the most immediate price for such asinine ex post facto guilt-mongering — although the ‘machete wielding’ and acid-throwing “thugs” would no doubt give him the treatment too if they had the chance.

    • Replies: @eah
    , @Dave Bowman
    , @anon19
  52. eah says:
    @eah

    • Replies: @eah
  53. For hundreds of years, the British Empire was ruled by an uncomfortable marriage between the English aristocracy and Jewish finance. Consequently, England is being blamed for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which was conducted by the Jews in her midst.

    The author employed a thoroughly deceptive segue from the activities of slave drivers on St. Kitts to the antebellum plantations of the American South. In reality, the two bore no resemblance.

  54. Oh yes, I can’t WAIT until Cambridge discusses those lovely sugar plantations in the New World, the ‘British’ slave plantations that were uniformly owned by Sephardic Jews.

    Because of course, a fair cheeked British lad from a Protestant background would find it easy to put together a merchant fleet and start a network of slave colonies. Why, I’m sure he’d have a ton of cousins with their own merchant fleets in other ports, such as the Barbary Coast and Italy. Knowledge of trade routes, ports, all of that stuff could just be picked up on the voyage.

    Anyone who thinks that the international merchant class wasn’t the portion of society responsible for setting up the slave colonies is an idiot, quite frankly. We all know who the international merchants in the west were.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
  55. I suggest Mr. Cockburn read Time on the Cross. Southern slavery was far more humane than slavery in other parts of the World. Lincoln was unable ro foment a slave rebellion. Working class people in the North worked under harsher conditions than slaves. Check out the New Bedford Whaling Museum website.

    • Agree: Dannyboy
  56. George says:

    “true nature of blah blah blah in the eighteenth century”

    Once upon a time, the establishment media was filled with books and movies glorifying the European adventurers, colonizers, Indian fighters, settlers, pioneers, ect of the 18th century. Not so anymore. So maybe presenting an alternative narrative was something useful. Today there really is no need for constant “true nature of blah blah blah in the eighteenth century” articles ect, we know about it. The Cambridge blah blah blah about the 18th century is a useless waste of time. Anything bad going on, for example, right now?

    FWIW, the UK is the nation most responsible for a comparatively bloodless end of slavery within her dominions and would most certainly have forced the place called the US of A to renouce slavery were it not for that revolution.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  57. fnn says:

    Contrary to the claims by the present-day critics of the Cambridge inquiry that racist views on slaves were all pervasive in the past, Ramsay wrote that in terms of intellect slaves “show no signs of inferiority to Europeans.”

    We all know that Jefferson made different observations. Jefferson, though he may be unpersoned soon, is a major figure of Western Civilization. OTOH, medicine was very crude in Ramsay’s day, and he was effectively someone who sawed off limbs for a living. Due to the then lack of a germ theory of disease Ramsay no doubt inadvertently killed many of his patients. But then most jobs were miserable back then and it must have been a fine thing to land a clerical or managerial position.

  58. Gordo says:
    @Oleaginous Outrager

    We Have Plenty to Feel Guilty for

    Go ahead and flog yourself in the town square all you want, Patty, but there’s no “we” here.

    Beat me to it.

  59. @eah

    David Lammy is a godless, ignorant, hate-driven, anti-White, racist African sub-normal, with nothing whatever in his heart or head but the hunger for power, to slaughter all his political enemies, just as his ancestors once did in the Congo with machetes.

    But unfortunately, he is also massively sly, cunning, deeply manipulative of the fawning press, and as ruthless as any White Labour Party pirate ever was. Along with his Black ‘sister’ in stupidity and intolerance, Diane Abbott, he is genuinely one of the most dangerous people in Britain.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @anon19
  60. Dannyboy says:
    @Backwoods Bob

    So how’d that work out for you folks?

    Glory Hallelujah!

    LOL

  61. Jmaie says:
    @martin2

    since it is humiliating for one’s own people to have been subjugated in this way.

    Why? Anger and resentment, I can understand. Humiliation not so much as it (usually) requires a personal failing.

    I must disagree about the motive for incessant reminders of past injustices. For some it’s a path to power, and for the rest it’s a mix of moral preening and self-flagellation (desireable for some psychological reasons).

  62. @George

    … the UK … would most certainly have forced the place called the US of A to renouce slavery were it not for that revolution.

    When? Forty-odd years later? The British Empire didn’t actually get around to abolishing slavery until 1832. Did George III have any imminent plans to abolish slavery before the American War of Independence? If so, I’ve never heard of them until now, even if it remains a favorite talking point among liberals that ‘we only sought independence to preserve slavery’.

  63. anon[316] • Disclaimer says:

    Contrary to the claims by the present-day critics of the Cambridge inquiry that racist views on slaves were all pervasive in the past, Ramsay wrote that in terms of intellect slaves “show no signs of inferiority to Europeans.” There is plenty of guilt for the inquiry to explore, none of it imaginary.

    Cambridge Slavery Inquiry Will Show We Have Plenty to Feel Guilty for

    knock yourself out, cockburn

    you should probably kill yourself to atone for it

  64. anon19 says:
    @eah

    Powell warned them.

  65. anon19 says:
    @Dave Bowman

    What wonderful immigration the U.K. has.

  66. @Talha

    I did not say or imply that West African Muslims “went on killing sprees wiping out pagan/animist populations”. I merely said that only “people of the book” were entitled to protection under Islamic law. The notion that Muslims, whether Maliki or Hanafi rite, dealing with non-people of the book, i.e., pagans, were legally required to respect their lives n property I believe is wrong, whether they paid jizya or not.

    Rather than consulting Maliki sources, which indeed generally prevailed in North Africa excepting Egypt, I will simply point to the East n West Sudanese slave trades in animist black Africans which lasted many centuries, to the long-standing expeditions from the East African coast that trafficked in slave caravans where the slaves were chained n forced to carry ivory (see Tibbu Tip), n to the Hanafi invaders of India who killed untold hundreds of thousands of native Hindus on the grounds that they were pagans n therefore not entitled to protection even if they paid jizya. This was followed by the widespread destruction of Hindu temples, while churches n synagogues in the Mid-East n Egypt generally were not destroyed if they submitted n paid jizya.

    The West African states like Mali were wealthier n more stable, so maybe they instituted more humane policies than Sudan n Somalia. I don’t know about that. But if Maliki required protection of animists after jizya was paid, I would like to see the source. If so, it appears it was observed more in the breach than in the letter of Islamic law.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Talha
  67. @Lo

    Exactly, and therefore, once you are able to label some as “human” and others as “subhuman” you can redefine some people as “subhuman.”

    I repeat, talk of “human” n “subhuman” is simply irrelevant when discussing the Ottomans. They had no knowledge of or interest in such ideas, which are mostly of the 20th century.

    Precisely because of this, ancient civilizations treated slaves better than late Europeans.

    This is nonsense. The fate of slaves thru most of history was to be worked to death, just look at the Zanj plantations of southern Iraq in the 8th century which worked thousands of imported African slaves to death. Iraq was Muslim then.

    And I don’t claim that only Muslims treated slaves as if they were human, but for example, in ancient Greece too they had a rather decent life, again it was a social status issue.

    I agree, slavery was primarily a social status issue in Europe n among the Ottomans, n I agree that slavery in the European colonies in the Caribbean reduced them to disposable labor, not good. But this happened in many places in many eras.

    Moreover, as I said, most slaves were domestic servants in the Ottoman Empire, people tend to treat those who live with them better, even if they don’t see them as their equals socially.

    I agree. Thus slavery in Brazil n the US did not treat them as disposable, that was more social status. But the Turkic khanates in Central Asia did treat Russian slaves as disposable.

    Also, no, there is no such thing as treating slaves however you wish in Islam. Quite the contrary, Islam orders to treat them well even if they are not Muslims, hoping that it may encourage them to convert.

    In actual practice this had little effect. Converting to Islam did not cancel one’s status as a slave, n once the profit motive comes in, you can be sure that conversion meant very little.

    References to killing animists/pagans are about wartime, not anytime and anywhere.

    That’s misleading since technically the Ummah is at war with non-Muslims at all times n forever. Periods of peace are only temporary truces.

    Finally, it wasn’t due to simple opposition against European ideas that the printing press was not established until late (the first was 1728, I think) but rather there were other things going along. Calligraphy was actually a sizable business and artisans successfully lobbied against printing press for a long time with the help of clerics, so much so even after the first printing press was allowed it was banned from publishing religious books.

    This is another way of saying that it was not just artisans who opposed presses, but the Arab religious clerics who opposed them. Under the Ottomans, Arab clerics ran the religious administration, not Turks. The Porte (Sultan) did not feel confident to challenge the Arab clerics, so he let them wreck the presses. The clerics believed calligraphy was authentically islamic while mechanical presses were against Islam. This goes back to the prohibition on bid’a (innovation) in Islam. We still see this attitude today in Saudi Arabia not wanting women to drive. n yes this also meant opposition to European ideas being introduced, which we also still see today in the ME.

    Otherwise, in general, Turks had been generally quick to adopt useful technology especially early on.

    If you mean military technology, yes. The Ottomans collapsed under the pressure of trying to govern a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural empire, which required them to turn one group against another in order to maintain power. IOW the sultans destroyed their own state. But this is the fate of all multi-ethnic empires.

    • Replies: @Lo
  68. Yes lets look at this subject again.Maybe we can start by telling the truth this time Cambridge University..

    David Irving & Tony Martin: The Jewish Role In The Trade In African Slaves

    Tony Martin on the Black Slave Trade,

    HISTORY: Jewish Slavetrade Documentary

    And the 2 Million White Slave Trade never gets any mention I wonder why?

    Barbary pirates


    https://www.bitchute.com/video/HHBNqnvi1I7k/

    Yes lets revisit this subject and tell the truth for once.

  69. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sin City Milla

    I’m not a Muslim scholar or even a Muslim, so I’m not in the best position to research this stuff, but it does appear that at least the Hanafis accept a dhimmi system from non-Book people:

    Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (Abu Yusuf) (d. 182 AH/798 CE). Kitab al-Kharaj
    وأما العجم فتقبل الجزية من أهل الكتاب منهم والمشركين وعبدة الأوثان والنيران من الرجال منهم . وقد أخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الجزية من مجوس أهل هجر والمجوس أهل شرك وليسوا بأهل كتاب وهؤلاء عندنا من العجم ولا تنكح نسائهم ولا تؤكل ذبائحهم
    ووضع عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه على مشركي العجم بالعراق الجزية على رءوس الرجال على الطبقات المعسر والموسر والوسط
    وأهل الردة من العرب والعجم الحكم فيهم كالحكم في عبدة الأوثان من العرب : لا يقبل منهم إلا الإسلام أو القتل , ولا توضع عليهم الجزية
    As for the non-Arabs, accept the jizya from the People of the Book, the polytheists, and the idol worshippers among them. Because the Messenger of Allah accepted the jizya from the Zoroastrians of Hijr, and the Zoroastrians are polytheists (ahl al-shirk), and they do not have a book. And their women cannot be married, and their meat cannot be eaten.
    And Umar ibn al-Khattab accepted the jizya from the non-Arab polytheists in Iraq…but as for the apostates, whether they be Arab or non-Arab, their ruling is the ruling of Arab idol worshippers: Nothing is accepted from them except Islam, or the sword, and they are not given the (option of) the jizya.

    https://selfscholar.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/a-fiqh-of-tolerance-readings-from-the-hanafi-madhab/#jizya

    This was followed by the widespread destruction of Hindu temples, while churches and synagogues in the Mid-East and Egypt generally were not destroyed if they submitted and paid jizya.

    You need to back up there a little.

    Churches were not destroyed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia
    Temples were not allowed to remain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundeshwari_Temple

    The Islamic conquest of India was an incredibly sanguinary one. Part of that is due to the fact that Hindus put up a good fight, so much so that even by the end of the Mughal period the Mughals are being eclipsed by a Hindu dynasty. Fanatic rulers like Aurangzeb or Sabuktigin are the exception rather than the rule.

    If so, it appears [every law of war ever] was observed more in the breach than in the letter

    I think this would be a more accurate statement.

  70. @Sean

    Irish slaves myth…

    According to wikipedia:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

    Some books have used the term “slaves” for captive Irish people forced from their homes in Ireland and shipped overseas, against their will, to the New World

    Well that clears that up.

    • Replies: @Alden
  71. Talha says:
    @Sin City Milla

    Sorry, it’s Ramadan, so I won’t give too detailed a response, but since this was an open item.

    I merely said that only “people of the book” were entitled to protection under Islamic law.

    And that is incorrect.

    I believe is wrong

    Your opinion is irrelevant in the face of the mufta-bihi (the dominant fatwa of the school) opinion of the two largest schools of jurisprudence in Islam. You are entitled to your opinions, but not facts.

    I will simply point to the East n West Sudanese slave trades in animist black Africans which lasted many centuries

    There was a long standing treaty with Nubia (called the Baqt) part of which concerned an annual levy of slaves.

    Also, Tatars raided Christian territories for centuries before the Rus crushed them and the Barbary Pirates mostly harassed Christian coastlines and sailors. So the argument does not stand.

    Frontier territories at the borders were often the sites of slave raiding enterprises irrespective of who they were. It was precisely because they were NOT part of Dar ul-Islam (and thus part of the dhimmah agreement) that they were not also de-militarized and granted protection from such activities.

    the Hanafi invaders of India who killed untold hundreds of thousands of native Hindus on the grounds that they were pagans

    The Muslims who invaded India were mostly Persianized Turks. Turkic invasions (like those of most steppe peoples) were very sanguinary in nature – look at Tamerlane who invaded mostly Muslim lands. The problem here is that the invaders also employed Hindus (even at the outset with Ghaznavids):
    “The position of Hindu generals, soldiers, and scholars at the Ghaznavid court is also significant. Even Mahmud, the iconoclast, had a contingent of Hindu officers and soldiers. He richly rewarded at least one Sanskrit poet, and had Hindu pandits at his court. He also issued coins with Sanskrit inscriptions. The Hindu position seems to have improved greatly in the days of his successor, Masud. Only fifty days after the death of Mahmud, his son despatched Sewand Rai, a Hindu chief, with a large body of Hindu cavalry in pursuit of the nobles who had espoused the cause of his brother. Sewand Rai died in the ensuing battle, but his selection for this important assignment indicates his position of trust and eminence…contemporary evidence suggests that the Hindu position under the Ghaznavids was very much better than it was to be in the early days of the Delhi Sultanate.”
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part1_02.html

    But if Maliki required protection of animists after jizya was paid, I would like to see the source.

    It’s in the Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah of Imam Mawardi (ra) – sorry, it’s sitting on my shelf. It’s also stated in Imam Qurtubi’s tafsir Jaami Ahkam al-Qur’an.

    Here is a non-Muslim academic source:
    “The Maliki school considers every non-Muslim, Arab or non-Arab to be dhimmi, including idol worshippers.”
    Convivencia and Medieval Spain: Essays in Honor of Thomas F. Glick

    If so, it appears it was observed more in the breach than in the letter of Islamic law.

    Depends on where you are talking about. If it was not observed then India would be quite depopulated of Hindus.

    Wow – and I said I would not be detailed. (sigh)

    Anyway, that’s it until after Ramadan.

    Peace.

  72. Alfred says:

    IMHO, it is all to do with cheap energy. As soon as the steam engine arrived, there was no longer any need for so many slaves on a great many activities.

    When energy becomes more expensive again, slavery will return. The ones who will have fewest inhibitions will be the members of a certain tribe – as usual.

    BTW, sex slavery has always been with us and Australia is festooned by mostly Chinese-run brothels with slave girls locked up 24/7. Of course, the authorities know all about it. They form part of its clientèle.

    • Replies: @Alden
  73. anon[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @martin2

    Then I realised the real reason that liberals and leftits endlessly go on about blacks being kept as slaves. It is just a passive aggressive way of humiliating blacks. Liberals hate blacks and will all they can to hurt their feelings.

    democrats are the real racists

  74. fnn says:

    More videos to get people upset:

  75. @Anon

    Thank you for the references. I will follow them up when i can. Re India: in fairness it should be noted that there were vast numbers of Untouchables who (I think) were most likely to quickly convert to Islam. People in the West do not realize that India was the most caste-conscious social system in the world. Between Babar’s Turks n these newly converted Untouchables, I can see how these “foreigners” quickly became vengeful rulers who were not interested in following the usual rules of Islam. But I’m no expert on what happened in India.

  76. @Anon

    I appreciate the info.

    at least the Hanafis accept a dhimmi system from non-Book people:

    Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (Abu Yusuf) (d. 182 AH/798 CE). Kitab al-Kharaj
    وأما العجم فتقبل الجزية من أهل الكتاب منهم والمشركين وعبدة الأوثان والنيران من الرجال منهم . وقد أخذ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الجزية من مجوس أهل هجر والمجوس أهل شرك وليسوا بأهل كتاب وهؤلاء عندنا من العجم ولا تنكح نسائهم ولا تؤكل ذبائحهم
    ووضع عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه على مشركي العجم بالعراق الجزية على رءوس الرجال على الطبقات المعسر والموسر والوسط
    وأهل الردة من العرب والعجم الحكم فيهم كالحكم في عبدة الأوثان من العرب : لا يقبل منهم إلا الإسلام أو القتل , ولا توضع عليهم الجزية
    As for the non-Arabs, accept the jizya from the People of the Book, the polytheists, and the idol worshippers among them. Because the Messenger of Allah accepted the jizya from the Zoroastrians of Hijr, and the Zoroastrians are polytheists (ahl al-shirk), and they do not have a book. And their women cannot be married, and their meat cannot be eaten.
    And Umar ibn al-Khattab accepted the jizya from the non-Arab polytheists in Iraq…but as for the apostates, whether they be Arab or non-Arab, their ruling is the ruling of Arab idol worshippers: Nothing is accepted from them except Islam, or the sword, and they are not given the (option of) the jizya.

    https://selfscholar.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/a-fiqh-of-tolerance-readings-from-the-hanafi-madhab/#jizya

    I’m no expert either. Just a few thots: this is close on the life of Abu Hanifa, so I’m inclined to trust its authenticity, tho 798 CE is getting close to the era of fraudulent hadith that tried to “backdate” to alleged sayings of Muhammad. A thorough examination of basic doctrine in the Quran n the works of Abu Hanifa himself I think would be called for before accepting Abu Yusuf at face value.

    Given the importance of Zoroastrianism, which was the national religion of powerful Iran, it’s not surprising that an exception would be made early to accommodate the Persians n ensure their loyalty to Islam. It’s also not surprising that no compromise was made on Arab idol-worshipers, or other polytheists, which would include Hindus n African animists.

    This was followed by the widespread destruction of Hindu temples, while churches and synagogues in the Mid-East and Egypt generally were not destroyed if they submitted and paid jizya.

    You need to back up there a little.

    Churches were not destroyed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia
    Temples were not allowed to remain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundeshwari_Temple

    I’m certain that in general churches were not destroyed, but left to Christians, as were synagogues. Often they were not allowed to be repaired, or new ones built. I no longer recall my sources for this. Hagia Sophia was not destroyed, tho, but only occupied n rededicated to Islam. Many Hindu temples, however, were destroyed, n many converted. But there were many Hindu temples n a great many survived. I still assert that there was a fundamental difference between Ahl ul-kitab n “the idol worshipers” which, except for a few exceptions like Iran, left the latter totally without rights n subject to arbitrary raiding or enslavement.

    The Islamic conquest of India was an incredibly sanguinary one. Part of that is due to the fact that Hindus put up a good fight, so much so that even by the end of the Mughal period the Mughals are being eclipsed by a Hindu dynasty. Fanatic rulers like Aurangzeb or Sabuktigin are the exception rather than the rule.

    You know more about that than I do.

  77. Lo says:
    @Sin City Milla

    I repeat, talk of “human” n “subhuman” is simply irrelevant when discussing the Ottomans. They had no knowledge of or interest in such ideas, which are mostly of the 20th century.

    And that is what I am saying, people did not need these ideas because they did not consider slaves to be less than human for the longest period. That is until Europeans came up with the idea that some people were inherently lesser. I don’t like wasting time giving citations; you can easily find countless examples of newly discovered people being defined like some lesser species in old documents. Once some are inherently inferior, it opens gates for all sorts of mistreatment.

    This is nonsense. The fate of slaves thru most of history was to be worked to death, just look at the Zanj plantations of southern Iraq in the 8th century which worked thousands of imported African slaves to death. Iraq was Muslim then.

    I repeat, slaves were treated better in ancient times, better just implies relativity not absolute terms. Large plantation economy was not common, and often slaves were not that different from their masters unlike in later times. This is partly human nature, partly economics. I precisely separated Arabs from Turks because of Zanj rebellion and already stated that the former did mix Arab supremacy into Islam. As soon as racial superiority is mixed in abuse towards others follow.

    But the Turkic khanates in Central Asia did treat Russian slaves as disposable.

    Incorrect. Russian slaves were rare and more expensive in Central Asia, much of a status symbol only the rich could afford. But here I will clarify disposable: mistreatment or some abuse alone does not mean disposable, this had always been the case for the poor and unfortunate, even today. However, once you stash 1000 people into a ship that can carry 150 because you figure at a 70% mortality rate you still profit more from 300 slaves than carrying all 150 alive is treating people as disposable. I need not elaborate this; it is already widely available information. Rather than checking apologist modern sources, look into older histories where this stuff is candidly discussed.

    I agree, slavery was primarily a social status issue in Europe n among the Ottomans

    I didn’t say it was social status in Europe at all times, it was a social status thing when a slave was expensive, when plantation economy wasn’t widespread, and when slaves were physically similar to their masters. Otherwise, pretty sure post rationalism Europeans were considering themselves to be superior race & defining American Natives or Sub-Saharans as less than a human. There were circuses for displaying these people.

    In actual practice this had little effect. Converting to Islam did not cancel one’s status as a slave, n once the profit motive comes in, you can be sure that conversion meant very little.

    It didn’t cancel status, but the existence of a principle implies at least a common agreement. That being, the slave is still a human and has a chance to be saved spiritually, and has a chance to be free. Certainly, people who would consider slave to have these properties would treat them better than those who considered slave to be something less not just socially but also biologically. It is then no surprise, actual Christians were major among abolitionists when the movement started.

    That’s misleading since technically the Ummah is at war with non-Muslims at all times n forever. Periods of peace are only temporary truces.

    This isn’t true and could be concluded only with selective reading. There are different views among Muslims too (so you are partially correct), so let’s not pretend that there is an agreement among Muslims that they are in a perpetual war. This is mostly propaganda to justify wars of aggression in Middle East and elsewhere.

    This is another way of saying that it was not just artisans who opposed presses, but the Arab religious clerics who opposed them. Under the Ottomans, Arab clerics ran the religious administration, not Turks. The Porte (Sultan) did not feel confident to challenge the Arab clerics, so he let them wreck the presses. The clerics believed calligraphy was authentically islamic while mechanical presses were against Islam. This goes back to the prohibition on bid’a (innovation) in Islam. We still see this attitude today in Saudi Arabia not wanting women to drive. n yes this also meant opposition to European ideas being introduced, which we also still see today in the ME.

    I will only correct a few factual errors, but not expand the whole claim because it is a topic for a book and very complex. No, Arabs did not run religious administration, barely any Sheikh-ul Islam was non-Turkish, religious administration itself is a misnomer but that is another topic. Thus, the following sentences regarding challenging them are also fiction, the mechanical press was simply not a concern of Sultans. Educated religious classes opposed press simply because it challenged their livelihood. Bid’a does not mean “ban all innovation,” it is about religious innovation; even then it is not an absolute thing, when people find it convenient they call “good bid’a” so suddenly the new thing is acceptable.

    I am not sure if Saudis are the best examples to show how good/bad Islam is. Aside from the fact that Wahhabism is widely shunned among Muslim scholars (increasingly rare), their clerics are some of the dumbest clerics ever existed. There is no basis in Islam to not let women drive, especially since it is recorded that women did ride camels to commute in pre-modern times. For future discussions, let’s not refer Saudis for anything Islam related (or anything for that matter). They are opportunistic desert dwellers who happened to usurp the rule of more civilized Arabs, they are out of date and must go away. I expect Western and Israeli support to get rid of Saudis. 😉

    If you mean military technology, yes. The Ottomans collapsed under the pressure of trying to govern a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural empire, which required them to turn one group against another in order to maintain power. IOW the sultans destroyed their own state. But this is the fate of all multi-ethnic empires.

    I meant technology in general, especially early on, if printing press was discovered and introduced 100 years ago, I am positive Turks would have no issue using it as there wasn’t a huge cleric and scribe class in early times. I agree with the rest of your statements.

    • Replies: @Logan
    , @alden
  78. Icy Blast says:

    How does Cockburn sleep at night after having written such drivel? Same old recycled ’68er cliches. He must be a haunted man.

  79. anon19 says:

    One could possibly argue that the trans-Atlantic slave trade benefited the Negro race in that the whole of the Carribbean, much of Brazil and other areas became black territories.

  80. JessicaR says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    I have some doubts about the veracity of of these figures because I don’t know how the survey was conducted.

    I assume that most of the former slaves interviewed by WPA employees, most were living in the Jim Crow South, where an African-American was lynched, on average, once a month. Where many more spent time in prison for upsetting powerful white men.

    If the interviewer was white, of course former slaves may have sugar-coated the truth about slavery out of self-protection.

    I suspect that the truth was somewhere in the middle. Yes, some plantation masters and overseers were Simon Legree. Some were more benevolent. But before I judge how common abuse was, I would like something else to go on than the results of WPA interviews.

    • Replies: @anon19
    , @anon
  81. Wally says:

    said:
    ” the Jim Crow South, where an African-American was lynched, on average, once a month”

    I call BS.

    Where’s your proof of such a claim?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Logan
  82. Wally says:
    @Mr. Grey

    African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade
    Nigerian civil rights group says tribal leaders’ ancestors sold people to slavers and should say sorry

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade
    “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.”

    Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let’s us know who the prime sellers & owners of slaves really were, Jews.
    Dr. Tony Martin – The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade

    Ugandan President Backs Trump’s ‘Shithole’ Comments: ‘He Speaks to Africans Frankly’
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/23/ugandan-president-backs-trump-shithole-comments-he-speaks-to-africans-frankly/

    • Replies: @Mr. Grey
  83. Mr. Grey says:
    @Wally

    We agree about Africans being the ones who actually ran the slave trade. But then we get this “Jews ran the slave trade” nonsense from Dr. Tony Martin, a hack academic peddling sloppily researched NOI and afrocentric garbage. The percentage of Jews involved in the slave trade to me is irrelevant. They did not start the slave trade and the southern U.S. would have carried on with slavery even if the tiny population of Jews living in the south never existed.

  84. anon19 says:
    @JessicaR

    “..lynched on avergae once a month”

    Which is twelve people per year. How many blacks were killed by other blacks last year in Chicago alone?

  85. A Paddy idiot defending Brit degenerates.

    When will Arabs and Turks pay reparations for enslaving millions of Europeans?

    What about African chiefs who sold millions of their own kinds to mostly kosher slave trader?

    • Replies: @Alden
  86. anon[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @JessicaR

    a third of the ~5000 lynched were white

    we also know now that blacks today commit violent crime at about 3-4x the rate of whites, why would it have been any different back then?

  87. anon[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    its was prob at least 3x higher than that but the relevant question is were they innocent or guilty?

    the likelyhood is that the vast majority were probably guilty anyway

    • Agree: alden
  88. Logan says:
    @Sean

    Europe exported about as many slaves to the non-European world as were exported from Africa to the Americas.

    Color me very skeptical.

    It is pretty well documented that 10M to 12M Africans were shipped across the Atlantic, and probably a similar or perhaps slightly smaller number fed the Islamic African slave trade, but with that trade active for a much longer time.

    Meanwhile, the total number of Europeans captured by the Barbary pirates was something in the neighborhood of 1.5M, with probably a similar or perhaps slightly larger number from eastern Europe and the “harvesting of the steppe.”

    Add in, perhaps, another million for medieval and dark ages slaves sold out of Europe. We’re still looking at something around perhaps 3.M total European slaves sold out of Europe, a good many fewer than 10M to 12M.

    • Replies: @Alden
  89. Logan says:
    @Wally

    Actually, that’s pretty close, if you squint.

    Tuekegee University carefully compiled a list of lynchings from 1882 to 1968. That’s 1032 months.

    3446 black (and 1297 non-blacks) were lynched over that period, Which works out to an average of 3.3 blacks per month over the period.

    The claim is somewhat distorted because the rate of lynchings dropped off greatly after 1900 and REALLY declined after 1920.

    http://www.americanlynchingdata.com/history.html

  90. Logan says:
    @Kent Nationalist

    “Conditions endured on the slave plantations of the Caribbean and the American South were very similar to those suffered by the Yazidis.”

    The American South should not be conflated with the Caribbean.

    One valid way of determining the harshness of a people’s life is how long they and their children live.

    In the American South from 1750 to 1860 there was a black population explosion of amazing proportions, pretty much identical to that of white Americans.

    Meanwhile, in almost every slave society in history, most especially including that in the Caribbean, slaves did not even replace their own numbers, requiring constant importation to keep the numbers up. Average life of a new slave in Jamaica, if I remember correctly, was something like six years.

    AFAIK, the American South is the only slave society in history to not only keep its numbers up through natural reproduction, but to increase them greatly.

    To me, that indicates something unique about American slavery relative to other such societies. It would make an interesting topic for research, but would of course be politically unacceptable, as more or less by defintion it would show American slavery to be less horrific than the norm.

  91. Alden says:

    Why should I care about Africans in the Caribbean 400 years ago? My only interest is in saving myself and my family from falling into White untouchable status as the American government has planned for the last 60 years.

    Cambridge colleges, the Uni and town were the property of the Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago and were seized and appropriated by Henry 8 the same way the French revolutionary government seized Notre Dame Paris and never gave it back. It’s stolen property you pompous pretentious White English hating marxist profs.

    The only worthwhile Cambridge college is Churchill college, established in the 1940’s after the war as a British answer to MIT University of Illinois Cal Tech Carnegie Mellon science and math schools. The rest are just marxist anti White racist indoctrination centers like American colleges. Americans who don’t know Cambridge Uni grads don’t know the anti American anti White anti European man marxist garbage taught at Cambridge. Keep the libraries and get rid of the non Churchill profs before they destroy the precious history of Europe and the European peoples in those libraries.

    Before and after the reformation, Cardinal Wolsey vastly improved the existing Cambridge Colleges and founded some new ones. Before the reformation he used embezzled money. The program expanded enormously after the seizure of the monasteries using funds from the sale of the monasteries to Henry’s friends.

    Wolsey used the money to build colleges. Henry and his friends used the money to build gaudy palaces for themselves.

    Why not weep and wail and caterwaul about that? Because the Uni was built on property seized from White English, that’s why.

  92. Logan says:
    @Lo

    Very interesting comments.

    Would like to add a point I’ve sometimes considered about US early 19th century attitudes towards slaves vs. those of, say, Latin Americans.

    We came up with, “All men are created equal.” Therefore, if some aren’t equal, they clearly aren’t men in the same sense. As Calhoun and the Dred Scott asserted, entirely logically.

    Meanwhile, in Latin America, rather than a “equal men” vs. “non-equal not-men” division there was a nearly infinite spectrum of human status. Not nearly as harsh a division.

    Which is not to say slaves and peons weren’t treated as badly, sometimes worse, than black slaves in the American South.

  93. Alden says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    Cockburns aren’t paddy real Irish. They were part of the Protestant Plantation and vastly benefited from 300 years of stealing the land and property o,f and exploiting and starving the real Irish. That’s where their money and gentry status comes from, exploitation and appropriation of the property of of starving Irish.

  94. Alden says:
    @Alfred

    San Francisco a small 49 sq mile town has had Asian slave girl brothels since 1950. There are more of them now than ever, police estimate thousands. Being mostly gay, the male authorities don’t patronize them.

    But those brothels are run by non Whites. Law Enforcement can’t touch them because of racial privilege.

    • Replies: @Alden
  95. Alden says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Slight addition to the sentence; Captive Irish people forced from their homes in Ireland, shipped overseas and sold against their will to owners in the new world.

    The very first shipment of White slaves in America was a shipment of White children and teens, orphans who the English government refused to feed and shelter rounded up from the streets of London. The year was 1619 and the destination was Jamestown Virginia.

  96. Alden says:
    @Logan

    Is that Western Europeans or the millions of Eastern Europeans as well? If Eastern Europeans are counted it’s probably more than 12 million.

    • Replies: @Logan
  97. Alden says:
    @German_reader

    look up the effects of beet sugar production on the sugar cane plantations.

    Because of the British blockades of the Napoleonic wars, cane sugar became scarce and very expensive on the continent. Beets are extremely sweet and full of sugar. And far easier to plant grow and process. So the French government encouraged, ordered the planting and processing of beets all over its European possessions. Beet Sugar was so cheap and easy to grow and process that the cane sugar plantations in the Caribbean India and elsewhere became obsolete. Although cane sugar, like beet and corn sugar is still grown and used. Montana, Idaho, Poland, Germany, there are thousands of miles of beet sugar farms in the world.

    The abolition movement had a great deal of support from British farmers and merchants who were jealous of the vast fortunes to be made from island cane sugar. It was a new product, beet sugar that meant Europe could produce its own sugar, right on the next farm.

    French government also created margarine and processed cheese as well a beet sugar during the Napoleonic wars. Fun fact, in 1760 Haiti was so wealthy that that at the end of the 7 years war the victorious British were willing to give up Canada and northern Louisiana territory for just one sugar island, Haiti. The French insisted on keeping it and soon after created beet sugar which destroyed the market for cane sugar.

  98. Alden says:
    @Sean

    Long before 1833 Queen Isabella of Spain outlawed slavery in all Spanish territories in the new world in the 1490s. Columbus violated these orders by e slaving both Spanish settlers and natives she sent a judge to investigate. He found Columbus guilty of slavery.

    Several American colonies outlawed slavery before the revolution.

    In 1827 the Mexican government again outlawed slavery in all its territories because the American settlers invited to Texas brought in black “servants”. The Mexican government knew full well that as soon as possible the American settlers would turn the servants into chattel slaves.

    The British weren’t the first to outlaw slavery. What with Hawkins, Drake and ER 1, England was the second European nation after Portugal to trade in African slaves. And they didn’t do it out of Christian virtue and altruism. They did it because European beet sugar made cane sugar obsolete for the average consumer. See my post if interested

    Between 1848 and the civil war both the Bear Flag Republic and the territory of California had to pass non slavery laws for the same reason the Mexican government passed the 1827 law. Slave owners were bringing in blacks and would make them chattel slaves as soon as they could bring an lawsuit and bribe a judge as was done by Antoine Johnson in Virginia 1654. As A Californian I’m glad we had the protection of the 1827 Mexican law and the later Bear Flag Republic laws. We managed to postpone the horrors of a black population until industry needed them in WW2.

    At least the countries seized after the war by the soviets are free now. But we Californians and northerners are stuck with the blacks who’ve destroyed our cities.

    • Replies: @Logan
  99. Alden says:
    @Alden

    Asian slave brothels since 1850

  100. Alden says:
    @Talha

    Massive bronze cannons developed, built and managed by a Hungarian Christian iron master who had a beef with the Christian government of Constantinople. He organized the entire armaments that conquered Constantinople.

  101. Alden says:
    @Verymuchalive

    The only useful college in the Uni is Churchill, pure math and science, set up after the war to be the MIT Cal tech research scientist training college of England.

  102. Alden says:
    @Backwoods Bob

    Some of mine for the south and there are pictures in their uniforms.

    • Replies: @Logan
  103. Logan says:
    @Alden

    My numbers may be off, but I did take eastern Europe into account.

    with probably a similar or perhaps slightly larger number from eastern Europe and the “harvesting of the steppe.”

    I just noticed that I had a typo. Meant to say 3.5M, but instead said 3.M, which of course doesn’t even make any sense. Or perhaps 4M.

    You could push some of the numbers of the enslavement and sale outside of Europe, perhaps. But I think it would be very difficult to get to even 50% of the transatlantic trade total of 10M to 12M.

    BTW, one of the least understood aspects of the African slave trace is that less than 5% of the slaves were sold in what is now USA. The vast majority went to Brazil and the Caribbean. USA was the farthest from the slave sources, so slaves were much more expensive here, quite possibly one reason they were treated better.

  104. Logan says:
    @Alden

    The Spanish government, in theory, prohibited the enslavement of the natives by various laws from the late 15th to the late 16th centuries. The repeated prohibition of course indicating that the laws were ineffective.

    Much of the motivation behind these laws was the expose of the cruelty committed against the natives by the Spanish as exposed by Las Casas. Ironically, these whistelblowers often campaigned for the expansion of the African slave trade as a way to protect the natives.

    The Spanish Empire didn’t finally end slavery in its Caribbean colonies until 1886.

    • Replies: @alden
  105. Logan says:
    @Alden

    I have ancestors that fought on both sides, including one Confederate that was captured, joined the Union Army and sent west to fight the Indians.

    • Replies: @alden
  106. alden says:
    @Logan

    Many did. What else was there to do when the south was destroyed?

    • Replies: @Logan
  107. alden says:
    @Logan

    I know the laws were ineffective, especially in Cuba, a major center for the Africans landing direct from Africa and trained and civilized for shipment to the main land and here and there.

    But the laws were made hundreds of years before the sanctimonious British realized their very expensive cane sugar couldn’t compete with locally grown and processed beet sugar all over Europe.

    When Louisiana was conquered by the Union troops in 1862 they found a group of Africans that had just been landed and abandoned. Apparently they weren’t the only African slaves landed between 1807 when African slave dealing was outlawed and the civil war.

  108. alden says:
    @Lo

    Ottoman lasted a lot longer than the British Empire did. And centuries before they made it to Anatolia, they were conquering vast territories east of Anatolia. Ottoman was just a dynasty. Before them it was the Seljuk dynasty. Quite a major player in European Central Asian Middle Eastern history.

    • Replies: @Logan
  109. Jojo28 says:
    @Paul

    Wrong.

    African “slavery” was not chattel slavery and more akin to indentured servitude.

  110. anon[354] • Disclaimer says:

    this article is like something a joo would write

    “hey fellow whites, we have a lot to feel guilty for”

  111. Logan says:
    @alden

    You really shouldn’t say the Ottomans were just another dynasty, as if “the Turks” have always been a single people. The Seljuks were not just a different dynasty, they were a different ethnic group.

    Turks, in an ethnic sense, are more like Europeans, including a vast range of people over a very long time.

  112. Logan says:
    @alden

    Except he was captured at Donelson, so the South wasn’t destroyed yet.

    These galvanized Yankees were routinely sent west, as it was, probably accurately, assumed that things would not go well for them if recaptured by their former army.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr