Arab slavers took more slaves than Americans (?)

[Bawon Samedi]

We had this discussion many times...

Arabs took slaves longer ,, mauratania outlawed slavery in 1980.. America outlawed it in the late 1800s.. Arabs have been taking slaves for a 1000 years.. Where as Europeans took slaves for like almost 400 years

And Arab means people of the sands it really not a race in its original meaning

Lol at Arabs purchasing slaves

1. Mauritanians are not Arabs but Arabized Berbers.
2. Slavery in Mauritania is not even linked to the Arab Slave trade in southeast Africa. So moot point in bringing up Mauritania.
3. There's a difference between "taking slaves longer" and slavery lasting long. Mauritanians never took slaves from other parts of Africa like Europeans and Arabs. For example, "taking slaves from Africa" was outlawed but slavery itself still existed in America. The same is said for Mauritania except the slave descent people are indignous to the country. And have a long ancestry of being slaves. So Maurtinia did not "take slaves longer". Slavery in the country only lasted longer. That does not in any shape or form prove that Arabs or Mauritanians took more slaves.
4. Yes Arabs HAD to buy slaves from other Muslims like Somalis and Swahili's. Try doing research. Africans like Somalis had a foot in the Indians Ocean trade.
5. Where do you get this idea that "Arab" means "people of the sand"???? Arabs are an ethnic group from Arabian peninsula. That's where the word "Arab" comes from.
6. Can you show me a black slave population in Arabia being larger than their New World counterparts? Since Arabs took more slaves.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

This is why so many Africans are Muslim. That's if they weren't forced to Christianity during European colonialism. shyt is still happening in Sudan right now. If slavery didn't exist most of us would be Jewish right now

Complete utter nonsense.

Most Africans especially in West Africa are Muslim due to trade or by conquest done by OTHER Africans like the Fulani. The only Africans who were forced to convert were the Berbers. And where do you get this idea that we would all be Jewish???

 

[Bawon Samedi]

IMO the idea of Arabs coming in and conquering/enslaving Africans is a myth that just wont go away(just like the myth of the Almoravid conquering Ghana) or its just over-exaggerated. And no I'm not being an Arab apologist. The only true area of Africa in which Arabs truly conquered/subjected was Northwest Africa and like I said before on here Northwest Africa back then wasn't even densely and did not have no true developed state until the Almoravid's(which was African controlled btw).

If anything Africans conquered "Arab"/Middle Eastern land more than the other way around.

 

[observe]

Hmm, I'm researching this topic. It seems to me that that Arabs were responsible for the enslavement of Africans well before the Europeans. Did Europeans start getting involved in the African slave trade as result of their participation in Arab trade markets? School me brehs.

This is how European slavery started..

In the late 1400s Spain and Portugal were learning how to sail the coast of Africa..they learned new sailing technology's from the Arabs who had been ruling Spain..they had to learn how to sail so they could find a route to china because the Muslims had blocked off the routes (the Silk Road) Europe couldn't get any goods from china ..it's like how if nowadays we couldn't get goods from china,.America would be fukked..no iPhones or whatever,,so we need china..that's how it was for Europe back then,,they also exhausted all their resources..barely any forests so no timber to build things....in 1492 the Christians ran the Muslims out of Spain so they had control over sea exploration ..so Columbus tried to find a route to china across the Atlantic ..what he found was the Americas..the Spanish killed many natives..the first african slaves were bought in to the Americas (Brazil the Carribean)to harvest sugar cane..this was in the early 1500s..with sugar cane you could turn it into mollassus shipping it back to Europe and turning it into rum and make profit..100 years later the first slaves came to America..Virginia in 1617....America used slaves to harvest rice tobacco and indigo and in the early 1800s cotton..Britain supplied most of the slaves to the Americas whereas Spain and Portugal and France supplied slaves in the carribeans and south america and Mexico

 

[observe]

Edit

 

[H.I.M.]

Didn't read any of the links yet. But i've heard this before and read a little into it in the past and it never made sense to me. If Arab-African slavery was anywhere near the scope & magnitude of the trans-atlantic slave trade, then where did all the descendants disappear to? Wouldn't persons of African descent have a much bigger presence all across the Arab world than they do now? There's only small numbers of African descent people in a handful of Arab countries (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Palestine) compare that to 100's of MILLIONS of African descendants all across the Americas and the Carribean as remnants of the trans-atlantic slave trade and it just doesn't add up.

What the hell did Arabs do with all of these 10's of millions of Africans that they alledgedly enslaved?

Were they melded and admixed into the Arab population and then became Arabs themselves? Or was there some unrecorded mass genocide we don't know about.

 

[BlackStarLine]

This is how European slavery started..

In the late 1400s Spain and Portugal were learning how to sail the coast of Africa..they learned new sailing technology's from the Arabs who had been ruling Spain..they had to learn how to sail so they could find a route to china because the Muslims had blocked off the routes (the Silk Road) Europe couldn't get any goods from china ..it's like how if nowadays we couldn't get goods from china,.America would be fukked..no iPhones or whatever,,so we need china..that's how it was for Europe back then,,they also exhausted all their resources..barely any forests so no timber to build things....in 1492 the Christians ran the Muslims out of Spain so they had control over sea exploration ..so Columbus tried to find a route to china across the Atlantic ..what he found was the Americas..the Spanish killed many natives..the first african slaves were bought in to the Americas (Brazil the Carribean)to harvest sugar cane..this was in the early 1500s..with sugar cane you could turn it into mollassus shipping it back to Europe and turning it into rum and make profit..100 years later the first slaves came to America..Virginia in 1617....America used slaves to harvest rice tobacco and indigo and in the early 1800s cotton..Britain supplied most of the slaves to the Americas whereas Spain and Portugal and France supplied slaves in the carribeans and south america and Mexico

Thanks for dropping that knowledge.

 

[NvrCMyNut]

Arabs are cacs with more attractive women

 

[NvrCMyNut]

Didn't read any of the links yet. But i've heard this before and read a little into it in the past and it never made sense to me. If Arab-African slavery was anywhere near the scope & magnitude of the trans-atlantic slave trade, then where did all the descendants disappear to? Wouldn't persons of African descent have a much bigger presence all across the Arab world than they do now? There's only small numbers of African descent people in a handful of Arab countries (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Palestine) compare that to 100's of MILLIONS of African descendants all across the Americas and the Carribean as remnants of the trans-atlantic slave trade and it just doesn't add up.

What the hell did Arabs do with all of these 10's of millions of Africans that they alledgedly enslaved?

Were they melded and admixed into the Arab population and then became Arabs themselves? Or was there some unrecorded mass genocide we don't know about.

• The raw numbers were no where near the trans Atlantic slave trade.
• Unlike the Arabs the Europeans bred their slaves, that's how you got a population of 32 million African Americans today when only 400k Africans came here in chains.
  
• The Arabs and later Ottomans, basically the Islamic world castrated their black male slaves. You watch Game of Thrones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion <---These nikkas was the real life unsullied breh, that's the biggest black slave rebellion in recorded history. Nikkas had no balls and still had more balls than the slaves over here
  
• #Nodarkbutts in the Harems

All reasons why the African diaspora in the Muslim world is very low despite the Africans presence there through out history, but some descendents do exist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Turks

 

[mbewane]

Random thoughts...

I had never heard the term "Black Arab" before ...Arabs were in no way limited to Eastern Africa, my pops told stories passed down to him about raids in the north of the Central African Republic...hell WHY would they limit themselves to only there anyway...as for why they are not as many black descendants today out there, two things : first, the arab slavery was not about, as far as I know, intensive work, but rather having people help you and serve you. So they didin't need to organize "breeding" as in the Americas, thus limiting the population increase. Second, I think that arab civilizations allowed slaves to "buy their way out" more easily, either by converting to Islam or by proving your worth. Maybe dudes just mixed with the local populations afterwards. The figures I've seen were always way under the trans-atlantic slavery tho. Can't say I've studied the issue enough.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

...Arabs were in no way limited to Eastern Africa, my pops told stories passed down to him about raids in the north of the Central African Republic...

Do you have actual sources? Because I read no historic sources that state Arabs ventured that far deep into Africa. Not only would developed pre-colonial African kingdoms of the Sahel NOT allow "foreigners" to venture that far(they did not want them to find the actual source of African gold), but the horses and camels they used would not have survived the heat and diseases of the region south of the Sahel. But more importantly is most likely talking about Muslim Africans like the Fulanis or Bangi people who were doing the slave raids. Mind you Fulani are still one of the largest ethnics in CAR. And like I said it was African Muslims like the Fulani who really converted most of West/Central Africa to Islam during their Jihads.

The Arab slave trade was mostly limited to coastal East Africa.

 

[ThatTruth777]

the above is shorter and to the point but the below is longer and gives a complete breakdown of it all, or at least I believe its the correct vid that does so, its been a while sense I listened to it.

 

[NvrCMyNut]

Dude in the clip above is the same guy who wrote that Black Athens book, don't waste your time on ism histories

 

[mbewane]

Do you have actual sources? Because I read no historic sources that state Arabs ventured that far deep into Africa. Not only would developed pre-colonial African kingdoms of the Sahel NOT allow "foreigners" to venture that far(they did not want them to find the actual source of African gold), but the horses and camels they used would not have survived the heat and diseases of the region south of the Sahel. But more importantly is most likely talking about Muslim Africans like the Fulanis or Bangi people who were doing the slave raids. Mind you Fulani are still one of the largest ethnics in CAR. And like I said it was African Muslims like the Fulani who really converted most of West/Central Africa to Islam during their Jihads.

The Arab slave trade was mostly limited to coastal East Africa.

I hear you, as I already admited I did not research this topic and the "source" I have is what my pops told me, and what was handed down to him by his father, his grand-father and so forth. I don't know why they wouldn't tell me the truth about that though...But look at where Sudan is, right next to CAR. Why would they stop there? Northern kingdoms were not strong enough to withhold them, and the reason North CAR is underpopulated today is that locals fled because of the raids (at least, again, that's what I've been told). I'm not sure how accurate this map is, I have a VERY hard time believing raids were not perpetrated in Chad for example...(the map is called "The Indian Ocean African slave trade", so obviously it only focusses on what was going on in that part of Africa).

 

[Bawon Samedi]

I hear you, as I already admited I did not research this topic and the "source" I have is what my pops told me, and what was handed down to him by his father, his grand-father and so forth. I don't know why they wouldn't tell me the truth about that though...But look at where Sudan is, right next to CAR. Why would they stop there? Northern kingdoms were not strong enough to withhold them, and the reason North CAR is underpopulated today is that locals fled because of the raids (at least, again, that's what I've been told). I'm not sure how accurate this map is, I have a VERY hard time believing raids were not perpetrated in Chad for example...(the map is called "The Indian Ocean African slave trade", so obviously it only focusses on what was going on in that part of Africa).

I'm not dismissing raids, I'm saying that it wouldn't be Arabs doing the raids but other African Muslims. Also the map I posted is very accurate. Anyways how would Arabs get to Chad when they would have to get through Sudan? Sudan who already WHOOPED them twice in a war. Sudan/Nubians are one of the reasons why Arabs never expanded that far into Africa. But more importantly there was already powerful Sahelian states like the Kanen or Bornu controlling Chad. So slave raids in Chad in general would have not been allowed. African Muslim states did not allow foreign slave raids on their territory. Just ask the Portuguese when they tried to raid for slaves in Mali territory. Heck the Swahili's of coastal East Africa didn't even allow Arabs or other foreigners to migrate to Zimbabwe/Southern Africa because they did not want them to find the source of their minerals.

And the Arab slave trade is correlated with the Indian ocean trade. Its not focusing on one part of African when talking about the Arab slave trade. As for more proof, most African descent slaves in Middle Eastern states were of Bantu/Nilotic origins from southeast Africa and not other areas of Africa. Here's something that backs me up even more:

"Except for the Zandj (black slaves) from lower Iraq, no large body of blacks historically linked to the trans-Saharan slave trade existed anywhere in the Arab world ... The high costs of slaves, because of the risks inherent in the desert crossing, which would have not permitted such a massive exodus ... In this connection, it is significant that in the Arabic iconography of the period, the slave merchant was often depicted as a man with a hole in his purse. Until the Crusades the Muslim world drew its slaves from two main sources: Eastern and Central Europe (Slavs) and Turkestan. The Sudan only came third. "

Africa from the Seventh to Eleventh Century, UNESCO, 1988