It is an interesting post.
The motive behind it is clear as day, the man is a nasty-minded racist
who enjoys stirring up trouble as can be seen by the choice of groups he
posts to. But just because somebody has got an axe to grind it doesn't
mean we should simply dismiss everything he says.
Why has the "white slave trade" been airbrushed from history? Why is it
so important to beat our breast over the actions of a minority of our
ancestors in connection with the trade of African slaves and yet
mentioning the white slave trade is taboo and considered either bad
taste, apologetics or provocative?
It is difficult to be clear about figures but it is probably true to say
that white Europeans and their American descendants took possession of
between 10 and 50 Africans for every one of their own that went into
slavery in the Muslim world. But that still leaves a substantial number
of white Christian victims of slavery, not counting the slavery imposed
on one bunch of white Christians by another, such as the slaves
Cromwell's army exported from Ireland to the Caribbean.
It seems slavery existed almost everywhere it was profitable to exist,
and the victims were whoever could be surrounded and captured and sold
to people with facilities to keep them in bondage. Black Africans became
the predominant victims of the trade because they were highly valued as
workers (partly because they were robust and strong and partly didn't
die from fever as fast as white prisoners tended to) and they didn't
have any frigates to bombard the ports of the slavers. Many of the
slaves were from tribes that themselves enslaved when they could.
Portraying slavery as a huge moral outrage committed by evil whites upon
innocent blacks is mistaken. Slavery was and is an outrage committed
against all humanity, the worst kind of abuse of power. Irish pirates
stole the British Christian Patrick into slavery and Muslim pirates
raided the coasts of Europe. Slavery is an evil form of behaviour that
should always be condemned and never ignored.
Slavery has developed in many different times and places. It often
starts with raiding parties motivated by lust and plunder: wife stealing
and cattle rustling. In such raids the men that are over-powered are
usually simply butchered on the spot. Slavery can grow up if a use or a
market develops for the men (galley slaves to row the pirates back home,
general purpose slaves, harem eunuchs, or unpaid labour in the fields).
When both men and women become profitable to take slavery becomes a much
more attractive business proposition and by being more attractive it
attracts in more men who are willing to take the risks of being injured
or killed in the raid, which then gives them a greater numerical
advantage and so reduces the risks: it is a "virtuous" circle. You don't
have to be a Muslim, a Christian or a European to become a slaver. I
doubt that it would even be confined to our species. Slavery is likely
to grow up wherever there is an imbalance of power capable of giving one
group of intelligent beings the ability to surprise and subdue another
group. We are right to see it as immoral, it is a flagrant breach of the
Golden Rule. We must always be very wary of any belief systems
(religion, tribalism, nationalism or political ideology) which can lead
to justifications for treating one group of people as unworthy of
consideration as people for that is the thought that allows the evil of
slavery to persist.
--
Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org |
|
|
|