Fuck. I really thought this was over with, but there's still work to be done. Some of this fuckery really cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Here we go...
(06-09-2017 03:51 PM)Samseau Wrote: Nope. From leftopedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave..._centuries
Quote:"The African continent was bled of its human resources via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic. At least ten centuries of slavery for the benefit of the Muslim countries (from the ninth to the nineteenth)." He continues: "Four million slaves exported via the Red Sea, another four million through the Swahili ports of the Indian Ocean, perhaps as many as nine million along the trans-Saharan caravan route, and eleven to twenty million (depending on the author) across the Atlantic Ocean"
So you're looking at a minimum of 20 million slaves over 10 centuries, and a maximum of 40 mil. Europeans do not come close to this. America alone barely reached over 1 million blacks over 350 years.
This is just comical. I mean really and truly comical.
Every single time you try to make a definitive statement about African history, you show next to zero knowledge of it.
Case in point: your numbers here. You got them from Wikipedia, which is fine (it's the underlying source that matters - wikipedia is fine so long as the underlying sources are vetted, as I believe they are here). The issue here is that you did not read your source and are completely misinterpreting it. The numbers you are quoting here come from Elikia M’bokolo's "Le monde diplomatique" and
very explicitly include both African and European slavery.
Don't believe me? Here's what you need to do: click your link to wikipedia (the one you posted above). Find the footnote that follows the block of text you quoted. Go to that footnote. Read what it says very carefully:
Quote:Please note : The numbers occurring in the source, and repeated here on Wikipedia include both Arab and European trade. M’bokolo, Elikia (April 1998).
The eleven to twenty million across the Atlantic are part and parcel of the European trans-Atlantic slave trade. This means a total for the European trans-Atlantic slave trade of anywhere from 11 to 20 million accumulated over about 4 centuries.
He then mentions 4 million via the Red Sea, 4 million via the Swahili ports, and 9 million via the trans-saharan caravan route. That's 17 million. That is your total for the Arab slave trade over 1000 years.
Do the match and you're going to come to a couple of conclusions:
1. The Atlantic trade did as much (and potentially more) damage as the Arab trade.
2. The Atlantic trade did that damage in well under half the time.
(I'm not going to go into the many other distinctions between these two styles of slavery that warrant differential analysis - those are beyond someone with your nonexistent grasp of African history and total unwillingness to even read up on it)
So, again, if we're going to play oppression olympics here, the winner of the gold medal is pretty damn clear.
Again, you don't need to take my word for this - check your source:
http://mondediplo.com/1998/04/02africa
And one more time, for clarity, since you did not read your source carefully: it is aggregating numbers from
ALL SLAVE TRADING THAT TOOK PLACE IN AFRICA, BOTH EUROPEAN AND ARAB.
You blatantly ignored that and decided to lump all of the numbers together to come up with 40 million, a completely outlandish figure that is 100% divorced from reality. This tells me one of two things:
1. You lack reading comprehension (I'm going to write this possibility off, you're smarter than that)
2. You are disingenuously trying to fashion an argument that looks stronger than it is, and you don't respect my intelligence enough to plan for the likelihood that I would check your source and immediately debunk it.
In any case, this is unfortunate. Not only were you in one of the two camps above, but everyone co-signing your post in this thread effectively took you at your word and didn't bother to verify your source. That, again, says a lot about what is beginning to pass for academic rigor and intellectual honesty around here.
Both of the totals with regard to Atlantic and Arab slavery given above jive with the general academic consensus on the total numbers of Africans impacted by both trades - as I noted before, there are reams of per reviewed academic materials on these topics that have come up with that data. It's not hard to find. You should try harder to find it before you attempt to talk authoritatively with someone who already has.
Quote:As opposed to fake, bullshit "White privilege" you like to take seriously, there definitely exists a real and prevalent "Muslim privilege" which only stopped existing as the Muslims fell back into the stone age due to their regressive religion. Meanwhile in Muslim countries, Christians and Jews are always persecuted into extinction.
Regardless there is nothing funnier to me than a Black man defending Islam. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.
These statements, like your convoluted numerical analysis above, make no sense.
There is nothing "fake or bullshit" about white supremacy (or privilege, whatever you're calling it today). But for an individual who has quite frequently and openly endorsed said supremacy to make such a claim?
That is funny.
Quote:Quote:Finally, the slave trade (be it of the Atlantic European or Arab variety) has absolutely no bearing on this discussion and what should be done about the problems at hand. This is about as big a red herring as they come.
It totally relevant. You speak of Muslims as some poor persecuted people, when nothing could be further from the truth.
You think banning Mosques is extreme, while completely ignoring the long, violent, and oppressive history of Islam.
It means fuck-all. It is a red herring. A tangent you put out to distract from the point at hand. Do you know how I know this? Follow me here.
Let's say I agreed with you. Let's say I actually believed that there were 40 million black people taken within the Arab slave trade, and that said Arab trade actually dwarfed the Atlantic trade both in the rate at which slaves were taken and in the raw number taken. Let's say I agreed with your notion that, historically, Arabs were the greater enemy of blacks relative to white Europeans (we'll ignore the fact that such a simplistic race-based comparison would make no sense given the fact that "Arab" is not a race [neither is "Muslim"] and many, if not most, of the Arabs/Muslims engaged in the slave trade in Africa were, in fact, Black Africans who followed Islam - but put that aside for now; nobody with a level of familiarity with African history as low as your own could be expected to account for this).
So, to set the hypothetical: I agree with you. Arab slave trade was worse. Arabs were worse. They're the enemy of blacks.
If I hold all of those views and we're in complete alignment, am I still making the argument I'm making here with regard to my proposed solutions to the problem (Steps 1 and 2, detailed a few pages back)?
The answer is yes. Why? Because the truth you're overlooking is that my argument does not require an affinity for Islam to be made. It is an argument built on adequate and independent factual grounds.
Even if I agree with every single thing you said about the relationship between blacks and Arabs, I would still maintain that my proposed solutions (Step 1 and 2 - better law enforcement/political determination and a pullback on regime change and meddling in the Arab world) would make for better long-term solutions to the current issue at hand than the proposals you and your peers here are making, which amount to the following:
1. Ban islam
2. Annex sovereign muslim nations and give their land to the soldiers engaging in said annexation
3. Deport all muslims
4. Ban all muslim migration
Whether I agree with you or not, I still favor my plan to any of your own. I still believe my steps are more effective, efficient, and practical solutions than any of your own. I don't think that any of the alternatives (just about all of which are presented above) are viable. My agreement with you on the topic of black african and arab relations is not at all dispositive on this. It has no impact at all on my current conclusion.
That is why it is a classic red herring, because deep down you're fully aware of this. You introduce a topic you know a) has no relevance to the topic at hand and b) has no dispositive impact on the determination of the solution at issue because you want to distract, not discuss.
That is your problem.
Quote:Quote:Quote:You'll defend affirmative action against Whites, yet support the immigration of the biggest slavers of Blacks in all of history into the your country on the taxpayer's dime.
Another red herring. How long are you going to keep up with these?
Red herring = contradiction you have no answer to.
No, Red herring means completely unrelated tangent that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and has no bearing on the determination of the issues at hand. Again, let me illustrate.
Let's say I agree with you on the topic of Affirmative Action. Let's say I concur with your claims that it is an anti-white tool of discrimination that should end ASAP.
If you and I are in complete agreement on this point, am I still going to be here arguing that my Step 1 and Step 2 are superior to your proposals (ban islam, deport all muslims, etc)? The answer is yes. Why? Because affirmative action has nothing at all to do with my determination of the solution to the issues at hand. I came to that solution on grounds that were adequate and completely factually independent of my views on Affirmative action. I was going to get to this point regardless of whether I agreed with you.
That is why this is a red herring. Not only does this topic of affirmative action actually have
not a single fucking thing to do with the topic at hand, but it has no influence on the factual determination of the issues at hand. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion - it's introduction does nothing one way or the other.
You know this, which is why you introduced it.
Distraction, not discussion. That's your problem.
Quote:Quote:Quote:Now do you understand why I was against the removal of the confederate statue? Do you see how deadly historical ignorance can be?
You are not in a position to lecture me on historical ignorance right now. You're displaying far too much of it.
Physician, heal thyself: You speak of White Supremacism as a problem, but that only makes up 2-5% of Whites.
Conversely, Islamic Supremacism makes up easily 15% of the Islamic world, if not much more, from the surveys you quoted!
Only 2-5% of white believe in white supremacy over blacks?
You got a source for that? Actually, don't bother, I don't need one, I've seen my own. I'm calling bullshit.
As for healing, take your own advice.
Quote:Leonard's post about all of the White Supremacist attacks we should have seen by now is also on point. The return of the Nazi's is less likely than winning the lottery, yet Islam is right on our doorstops killing our Neighbors by the thousands every year.
For you to be so against one but not the other shows heavy cognitive dissonance, which just about everyone on this board can see. No one is trying to hurt you man, but your positions totally contradict each other.
Here I have someone who has openly endorsed the notion of white supremacy over blacks (and other "lesser" peoples) telling me that white supremacy is not a threat and I therefore must hop on the "ban islam bandwagon" (because he's not biased at all). He also insists that a big part of the reason I should do so rests in the supposedly endless and totally unmatched degree of historical injustice done to blacks by muslims...as if he actually gives a fuck about any injustice done to blacks or other "lesser peoples" anywhere at any time and as if he has any real particular knowledge about the history of black people.
You are the last person here fit to lecture me about cognitive dissonance. The very last.
You want some more cognitive dissonance? I had folks in this thread telling me that my plans were nonsense. My idea to encourage more forceful, determined policing and a revamp of western foreign policy as a two-step long-term solution was total nonsense. It would create a low-level civil war, one of them said. Impossible, he implied. Totally unworkable.
So, you might ask: 'What is this person's solution in the alternative, then?'
Try this:
(06-06-2017 04:03 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote: I'd simply prefer to take a stance that any nation that allows a terrorist to grow under their nose and attack the west becomes fair game for annexation.
The muslims would be driven from their homelands into the desert or neighbouring muslim lands. Generous real estate options would be opened to the soldiers who conquered the area, secondary concern being given to new colonists. From the first shot until the sun burned out this annexation would be declared permanent and irrevocable.
My prediction is that you would have to do this precisely once.
After that every muslim majority nation on earth would round up every terrorist and sympathiser without fail. The would jail every jihad-preaching imam the second he opened his bearded gob and deport every foreign-national muslim troublemaker.
And if they failed to do that and we suffered another attack then we would take ourselves another nation.
And from that time onward for ever and ever the nation that used to be Libya or Iraq or Pakistan will stand as a testament to the fact that you do not fuck with us, no matter what your stupid little book says.
A reformation would occur so fast it would make your head spin.
One might look at this and say "That's complete nonsense! How could someone suggest that strategies focused on less lackadaisical policing and less interventionist foreign policy are unworkable due to the tension they might create, while at the same time honestly believing that the annexation of sovereign nations is a viable plan?"
That's a good question. An equally good question would ask how one could reject said policing and foreign policy plans on the basis of their disruptive ability while simultaneously endorsing (as the user mentioned above and dozens of others in this thread have done) plans that call for mass deportation, the outright banning of Islam, or the banning of muslims within western nations?
Are those plans not more likely to create low level civil war and conflict? Are they not more likely to incite hostility among the peoples targeted, and more difficult to implement successfully?
The answer those questions is yes to anyone taking an objective look at all of this, but I am going to posit that very few folks in this thread are interested in doing that. In fact, I'd contend that quite a few are in the opposite camp for one simple reason: you hate Islam and you hate muslims.
A reasonable, workable solution like "quit the lackadaisical policing" and "quit blowing their countries to smithereens over nothing" implies long-term cooperation. These plans both incorporate my statistically backed belief that most muslims in nations like the UK are anti-terror and will be active agents in combating it (by, for example, reporting potential terrorists - as I noted earlier, the perpetrator of this most recent london bridge attack was reported well before he attacked). These plans assume that one can fight terrorism and virtually eliminate it even without eliminating islam within that society. They assume that there's a place for muslims in these societies, that there's no need for mass deportation or a draconian religious ban to effectively protect ourselves from ISIS.
That's the problem. Quite a few of you are so convinced of that Islam is inherently evil and all its followers such devilish cultists that any solution that implies something short of "send them back" is just not workable. You don't want to hear it. You don't want a solution that keeps you sharing a country with folks you consider to be evil. You want a solution that either makes life a living hell for them or gets them far away for good.
That is the line of reasoning that gets someone to oppose an idea about policing on the grounds that it will create conflict, while simultaneously suggesting that the annexation of sovereign muslim nations is a viable solution (because, honestly, what kind of conflict could that
possibly invite?).
You want to talk about cognitive dissonance? You and several others here need to look in the mirror.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
/
London Bridge and Borough Market Attacks (June 3, 2017)
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 21 users Like Leonard D Neubache's post:
![[Image: istSA.png]](http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/istSA.png)
![[Image: Someone+is+wrong+on+internet.png]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VcrNn8AiWMc/Tq2CavD4Y1I/AAAAAAAABCs/iv07lVmamsE/s1600/Someone+is+wrong+on+internet.png)
![[Image: nHs3A.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/nHs3A.gif)
