****WE WILL MISS YOU CASSIUS CLAY****

[Dukasaur]

LOL

So when some Arabs enslave some black people, they are the oppressors of black people and black people should reject all things Arab, but when some Christians enslave some black people it is just an anomaly and a small number of Christians should not be allowed to smear an entire religion.

You really are plumbing the depths in this thread, Duk.

It isn't "some Arabs" as in a random scattering. Slavery was major pillar of Arabic expansionism.

Almost all nations have had slavery at some point in their history, but the Arab nations carried on the practice for a longer time and on a larger scale than anywhere else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Historians estimate that over a period of over 1300 years (between 650 and the 1960s) 190 to 280 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe, Asia and Africa. Sources of slaves included convicted criminals, defeated forces / captured soldiers from the many conflicts and wars between African nations throughout the continent.

[mrswdk]

LOL

So when some Arabs enslave some black people, they are the oppressors of black people and black people should reject all things Arab, but when some Christians enslave some black people it is just an anomaly and a small number of Christians should not be allowed to smear an entire religion.

You really are plumbing the depths in this thread, Duk.

It isn't "some Arabs" as in a random scattering. Slavery was major pillar of Arabic expansionism.

That's right. Slavery was an institution in the Arabian caliphates, whereas in the British Empire, French Empire, America etc. it was merely a pastime engaged in by a couple of dozen bored ex-soldiers.

[Dukasaur]

LOL

So when some Arabs enslave some black people, they are the oppressors of black people and black people should reject all things Arab, but when some Christians enslave some black people it is just an anomaly and a small number of Christians should not be allowed to smear an entire religion.

You really are plumbing the depths in this thread, Duk.

It isn't "some Arabs" as in a random scattering. Slavery was major pillar of Arabic expansionism.

Whereas, of course, slavery was merely a passing fad which only a few people engaged in in America, Europe and other parts of the world.

Perhaps more than a passing fad, but definitely among Christians it was considered distasteful at best, and in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire most people were assumed to be free citizens.

[mrswdk]

LOL

So when some Arabs enslave some black people, they are the oppressors of black people and black people should reject all things Arab, but when some Christians enslave some black people it is just an anomaly and a small number of Christians should not be allowed to smear an entire religion.

You really are plumbing the depths in this thread, Duk.

It isn't "some Arabs" as in a random scattering. Slavery was major pillar of Arabic expansionism.

Whereas, of course, slavery was merely a passing fad which only a few people engaged in in America, Europe and other parts of the world.

Perhaps more than a passing fad, but definitely among Christians it was considered distasteful at best, and in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire most people were assumed to be free citizens.

Indeed. As soon as the Roman Empire fell, Europe was returned to the Christians and they abandoned slavery at once:

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slav ... rwood.html

Why are you continuing to spout so much complete and utter garbage? Is there something happening somewhere else on CC that you're trying to distract us from?

[Dukasaur]

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.

6 million enslaved by the British versus 280 million enslaved by the Arabs.

Jesus Christ, I guess you've got me licked. The British are definitely worse than the Arabs.

[Metsfanmax]

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.

6 million enslaved by the British

Wow, you managed to misread a three sentence quote.

versus 280 million enslaved by the Arabs.

Yes, it is clearly fair to compare the two groups this way without any reference at all to the relative size and extent of their population.

[thegreekdog]

I don't think you could have failed to respond to saxi's argument any harder than you did here.

It is both painful and hysterical to watch someone devolve when he tries so hard to not admit he is wrong.

I assume you agree with him, then, that the Nation of Islam is not Islamic just because it's not in line the the mainstream sects.

I'd love to hear your reasoning.

I trust you'll bring something more substantive to the table than saxi's smoke and mirrors.

I recommend you go back to the beginning of this thread, specifically wherein you talk about the irony of a black rights/power group adopting Islam because it's "an Arab religion" and Arab's oppress blacks and then read Saxi's response. Everything else you've typed in this thread is a feeble attempt to justify your first post because you won't admit that you're wrong.

Let me ask a different question - Do you find it ironic that blacks have adopted white Christian names and Christian religions when white Christians oppressed them as recently as 1865 or 1965 (or perhaps yesterday)?

Whites who happened to be members of Christian churches may have oppressed blacks, but the churches themselves for the most part were opposed to slavery. (Yes, I know that not ALL churches were opposed to slavery, but on balance far more preachers opposed it than supported it.) The Abolitionist movement was "partly fueled by the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening, which prompted many people to advocate for emancipation on religious grounds" and from start to finish had strong religious overtones. "By stressing the moral imperative to end sinful practices and each person’s responsibility to uphold God’s will in society, preachers like Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel Taylor, and Charles G. Finney in what came to be called the Second Great Awakening led massive religious revivals in the 1820s that gave a major impetus to the later emergence of abolitionism as well as to such other reforming crusades as temperance, pacifism, and women’s rights." http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/abolitionist-movement

In the 1960s Civil Rights movement Christian churches were again front-and-centre in the fight for civil liberties for blacks.

Today, Christian churches are still fighting, now on new battlegrounds in Asia and Africa, against the institution of slavery in all its forms.

So the short answer is "no" I do not find it ironic. I can see why blacks feel an attraction to Christianity.

Christianity as far back as its dim origins in the days of the Roman Empire was seen as a force for the emancipation of slaves. Yes, persons who coincidentally were Christians did run the slave trade, but they were mainly of the mercantile class, and presumably not very devout. Whenever one comes across a mention of clergymen with respect to slavery, they are almost always (and yes, I'll grant there are exceptions, which is why I stress almost always) seen as either opposing the institution, or at the very least advocating more humane treatment of the slaves.

This is beyond ridiculous. I mean, where do I begin?

(1) You're conflating "Arab" and "Christian" as if they are both a type of the same thing. "Arab" is, I suppose, an ethnicity. Christian is a person who believes in a type of religion. Ethnicity... religion... not the same thing.
(2) The vast majority of Christian religions do not have an overlord church hierarchy watching over them. There is no papacy in most Christian religions. So when you say "church" I'm not sure you know what you mean.
(3) The abolitionist movement in the United States started in earnest in the 1800s. Slavery in the colonies started well before then. Further, the United States is one nation which, at the time, was composed almost entirely of Christians. We're not even covering the other white Christians who had black slaves (e.g. the Spanish colonists, the French colonists, the Dutch colonists). Even further, a substantial portion of those United States Christians lived in a society that enslaved blacks after the abolitionist movement began. In fact, there was a war fought on the subject... you may be aware of it. Even even further the religion the current and former slaves picked up was not the religion of the abolitionists; it was the religion of their white masters. Even even even further, where was Christianity from 1865 to 2016? Seems like there are a whole lot of racist white Christians in the United States doing racist things to black people.
(4) Blacks in the United States changed their names from things like Cassius Clay (probably the surname of his ancestor's former slave owner) to Muhammad Ali (probably a made up name that had little to do with religion). So what you're asking is "Why would black people change their names given to them by their white slave owners in the United States to a Muslim name tenuously, at best, connected with Arabs who live half a world away and did nothing to that black person's ancestors in recent memory?" and "Why would black people change their religions from the religion given to them (or forced on them) by their white slave owners for a religion which, tenuously at best, is related to a religion that certain Arabs practice half a world away who happen to enslave blacks?" I mean, it hurts me to type these things.

I would go on, but I don't feel the need to do so.

If you would like a way to win this argument, you must demonstrate that an overarching Muslim hierarchy (which does not exist) required Muslims to hold black slaves (which did not happen). Alternatively, you could try to demonstrate that the vast majority of Muslims owned or supported the ownership of slaves, including Muslims living in the United States in the 1960s (which is not true) and this is somehow a greater number of people and/or people exerting greater power than white Christians exerted in the 15th through 19th centuries in Europe, its colonies, and the United States (which you can't do).

So... maybe stop being a stubborn jackass that can't admit he is wrong.

[mrswdk]

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.

6 million enslaved by the British

Wow, you managed to misread a three sentence quote.

versus 280 million enslaved by the Arabs.

Yes, it is clearly fair to compare the two groups this way without any reference at all to the relative size and extent of their population.

Not to forget timescales! Duk's top end estimate of the number of slaves traded across the entire Arab world is an estimate covering a period of more than 1,300 years, compared to the low end estimate I provided of the number of slaves trade by a handful of small European countries during a 100-year period.

Therefore Arabs are all horrible slavers, whereas the white folk are just good Christians whose good name has been smeared by a few sneaky pirates.

[thegreekdog]

Not to forget timescales! Duk's top end estimate of the number of slaves traded across the entire Arab world is an estimate covering a period of more than 1,300 years, compared to the low end estimate I provided of the number of slaves trade by a handful of small European countries during a 100-year period.

Therefore Arabs are all horrible slavers, whereas the white folk are just good Christians whose good name has been smeared by a few sneaky pirates for only 500 or so years.

Fixed that for you.

[mrswdk]

Is this the part where Duk goes back to telling us about how there's a big global conspiracy in which everyone except him is pretending that Nation of Islam don't believe the same things as Muslims?

[saxitoxin]

This article has multiple issues. This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2015)

Historians estimate that over a period of over 1300 years (between 650 and the 1960s) 190 to 280 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe, Asia and Africa.

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

fixed

In fact, after a cursory search on Bing, I can't find a single source anywhere that says 190-280 million except one mention on the Stormfront message board which may be where this number originated. I just went ahead and deleted it from Wikipedia.

[mrswdk]

This article has multiple issues. This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2015)

Historians estimate that over a period of over 1300 years (between 650 and the 1960s) 190 to 280 million people were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Europe, Asia and Africa.

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

fixed

In fact, after a cursory search on Bing, I can't find a single source anywhere that says 190-280 million except one mention on the Stormfront message board which may be where this number originated. I just went ahead and deleted it from Wikipedia.

Indeed. A very simple Google search for Duk's 280 million figure turns up this article in which 'Loon Watch' debunks a similar claim of 270 million made by Pamela Geller, a woman who thinks Sharia law is taking over America and who was banned from the UK on the grounds that allowing her to enter the country would be harmful to the public good. She reaches her claim of '270 million victims of Islam throughout history' not only by attributing all slavery in Africa ever solely to Muslims, and then assuming an average of 4 family members dying for every slave captured, but by then adding up all the crackpot estimates she could find pertaining to the number of Jews/Hindus/Christians etc. slaughtered by Muslims throughout history and then adding them to her ridiculous slavery estimates. Only then does she manage to reach the figure of 270 million.

The same Google search also turns up the much more reasonable (and properly referenced) estimate of 10-18 million people enslaved by Arab traders between 650 and 1900, but that's by the by. Given his inherent distrust of any source which fails to support his swivel-eyed conspiracy theories, Duk has apparently decided the time has come to finally cross the aisle and throw his hat in with the Holocaust deniers and the Birthers once and for all.

[Dukasaur]

LOL

So when some Arabs enslave some black people, they are the oppressors of black people and black people should reject all things Arab, but when some Christians enslave some black people it is just an anomaly and a small number of Christians should not be allowed to smear an entire religion.

You really are plumbing the depths in this thread, Duk.

It isn't "some Arabs" as in a random scattering. Slavery was major pillar of Arabic expansionism.

That's right. Slavery was an institution in the Arabian caliphates, whereas in the British Empire, French Empire, America etc. it was merely a pastime engaged in by a couple of dozen bored ex-soldiers.

Your exaggeration aside, it was an activity engaged in by a small subset of the merchant sailor class in some port towns. It was tiny and disreputable minority. Yeoman Farmer Ferdinand did not own slaves.

In the Caliphate, on the other hand, farmer Abdul was likely to have a slave or two to help work the land.

(1) You're conflating "Arab" and "Christian" as if they are both a type of the same thing. "Arab" is, I suppose, an ethnicity. Christian is a person who believes in a type of religion. Ethnicity... religion... not the same thing.

I'm perfectly aware that there are Muslims who are not Arabs and Arabs who are not Muslims. Nonetheless, at its core Islam is basically the propaganda arm of militant Arab expansionism, and conversely, the scimtar to the throat "convert or die" was throughout history the maim method of expanding Islam. So, just as it might be technically true to say the Politburo is not the Supreme Soviet, the distinction is largely trite and academic. The primary aim of Islam is to support Arab conquest, and the primary aim of Arab conquest is to spread Islam.

(2) The vast majority of Christian religions do not have an overlord church hierarchy watching over them. There is no papacy in most Christian religions. So when you say "church" I'm not sure you know what you mean.

Christian churches do mostly have hierarchies of one kind or another. Some are more democratic than hierarchical, but some kind of governing authority exists in almost every church.

We're not even covering the other white Christians who had black slaves (e.g. the Spanish colonists, the French colonists, the Dutch colonists).

If you did, the story remains the same. Slavery in all the European nations was a somewhat disreputable business run by some shady characters. Many of the slavers were also pirates, and the skanky ethics of piracy were not that different from the ethics suitable for slave-running.

[quote=="thegreekdog"]If you would like a way to win this argument, you must demonstrate that an overarching Muslim hierarchy (which does not exist)[/quote]
The Caliphate did not exist?

required Muslims to hold black slaves (which did not happen).

Not required, but condoned and facilitated and profited enormously from the slave trade.

Alternatively, you could try to demonstrate that the vast majority of Muslims owned or supported the ownership of slaves, including Muslims living in the United States in the 1960s (which is not true) and this is somehow a greater number of people and/or people exerting greater power than white Christians exerted in the 15th through 19th centuries in Europe, its colonies, and the United States (which you can't do).

Every account I've read of the Arab lands, from Marco Polo to Benjamin Disraeli, expresses surprise at the sheer number of slaves everywhere. Contrariwise, every account I've read of slavery in the Europe and America, shows that even in slave-owning regions, only a tiny percentage of the population were ever slave owners.

So... maybe stop being a stubborn jackass that can't admit he is wrong.

I have no trouble admitting that I'm wrong, when I am.

Historian Paul Lovejoy has estimated that between 1701 and 1800 about 40 per cent of the approximately more than 6 million enslaved Africans were transported in British vessels. (It must be noted that this figure is believed by some to be a considerable underestimate.) Lovejoy estimated that well over 2 million more were exported between 1811 and 1867 – again, many believe the numbers were much greater.

6 million enslaved by the British

Wow, you managed to misread a three sentence quote.

I did not misread it, I simply didn't feel the need to quibble. 40% of 6 million is a lot less then 6 million, but then again it might be an underestimate. So it might be less, or it might be more, I'm not worried about the exact number. The central point is that it was run by unsavoury characters in port towns, many of who were also pirates, and was never endorsed or participated in by the mainstream of European society.

If I had wanted to quibble, I would have pointed out that many of these enslaved Africans were initially enslaved by Arab slavers. The European merchants bought them from the Arabs already chained.

[DoomYoshi]

it was fashionable among historians in the 1960s and 1970s to treat missionaires as the principal agents of colonialism and Christianity is still often labelled as the religion of the white imperialists in a way in which Islam is never thought of as the religion of the most active slave-traders.

For this there are many reasons, not least the fact that Christianity so often appeared to be officially linked with the spread of European domination in a way in which Islam was never idenfiably a part of the trade in slaves.

[thegreekdog]

I'm perfectly aware that there are Muslims who are not Arabs and Arabs who are not Muslims. Nonetheless, at its core Islam is basically the propaganda arm of militant Arab expansionism, and conversely, the scimtar to the throat "convert or die" was throughout history the maim method of expanding Islam. So, just as it might be technically true to say the Politburo is not the Supreme Soviet, the distinction is largely trite and academic. The primary aim of Islam is to support Arab conquest, and the primary aim of Arab conquest is to spread Islam.

That is not unlike, say, white Europeans and Christianity in the Age of Exploration, the Age of Colonization, and the Age of Empires.

Christian churches do mostly have hierarchies of one kind or another. Some are more democratic than hierarchical, but some kind of governing authority exists in almost every church.

So the southern Baptist bishops were part of the abolitionist movement then?

The Caliphate did not exist?

Sure. But in the 1960s? In the United States? Shit... in the 1860s? In the United States? You know we're talking about American blacks whose ancestors were slaves of white Americans, right?

I have no trouble admitting that I'm wrong, when I am.

Okay, except you are wrong here. This is not a situation of being shouted down by 4+ Conquer Clubbers. This is a situation where you are wrong. American blacks had no reason to look with suspicion on Islam in the 1960s; they had every reason to look with suspicion on American Christianity in the 1960s. American blacks were not slaves of Arabs or Muslims; they were slaves of white Christians.

Further, and worse, you are giving a free pass to white Christians. You're completely ignoring that black slaves (the ancestors of Cassius Clay, etc.) were shipped by white Christian Europeans to serve white Christian colonists who then became white Christian Americans and then, sometime in the 19th century, a certain small percentage of northern white Christians (incidentally, where slavery was not economically viable) became abolitionists. Nevermind that a significant portion of white Christians in the north did not oppose slavery and there was near unanimous support of slavery by white Christians in the south. Nevermind that after the Civil War, white Christians throughout the country remain racist and/or worked diligently to make sure blacks had no rights.

Muhammad Ali had every reason to change his religion, affiliation, name, etc. because of white American Christians. Muhammad Ali had no reason to change his religion, affiliation, name, etc. to something else. Again, assuming that Nation of Islam and Islam are the same thing (which they aren't).

[DoomYoshi]

tgd misses that white christian slavery was good for the blacks, as evidenced by Confederate literature. Arabian slavery was bad for them.

[muy_thaiguy]

tgd misses that white christian slavery was good for the blacks, as evidenced by Confederate literature. Arabian slavery was bad for them.

Yeah, because of, uhm.... White power or something?

[ConfederateSS]

tgd misses that white christian slavery was good for the blacks, as evidenced by Confederate literature. Arabian slavery was bad for them.

Yeah, because of, uhm.... White power or something?

---------WOULD THAT OR SOMETHING BE......The fact that their children and their children's children etc... IN 2016 are in THE USA..In a country that anyone can be,do anything. If they are willing to work for it(unless you are a democrat/then you get it for free .)..Not living in Africa. Running from all sorts of death...War,starvation,sickness etc.etc....Everyone in the world is trying to punch their ticket to America(for the past two centuries)....Outside of Liberia...I don't see anyone running back to Africa...But anyone is Free/more than welcome to go if they want. Nobody's stopping them.........Let's send ali's body there(or mecca)...I'm sure he would be more happy there. Then a country he turn his back on. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)....Before the peanut galley speaks.......George S. Patton is buried in Luxembourg.....If anyone should be buried in Arlington it's Patton...He is from Virginia ,his grandfather was on of Lee's officers who traveled with Lee everywhere...Just saying...Americans can be buried over seas....Not to mention 1,000s and 1,000s on beaches worldwide defending freedom.THANKS WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN . So that cry baby ali could make millions FIGHTING in a boxing ring.

[muy_thaiguy]

tgd misses that white christian slavery was good for the blacks, as evidenced by Confederate literature. Arabian slavery was bad for them.

Yeah, because of, uhm.... White power or something?

---------WOULD THAT OR SOMETHING BE......The fact that their children and their children's children etc... IN 2016 are in THE USA..In a country that anyone can be,do anything. If they are willing to work for it(unless you are a democrat/then you get it for free .)..Not living in Africa. Running from all sorts of death...War,starvation,sickness etc.etc....Everyone in the world is trying to punch their ticket to America(for the past two centuries)....Outside of Liberia...I don't see anyone running back to Africa...But anyone is Free/more than welcome to go if they want. Nobody's stopping them.........Let's send ali's body there(or mecca)...I'm sure he would be more happy there. Then a country he turn his back on. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)....Before the peanut galley speaks.......George S. Patton is buried in Luxembourg.....If anyone should be buried in Arlington it's Patton...He is from Virginia ,his grandfather was on of Lee's officers who traveled with Lee everywhere...Just saying...Americans can be buried over seas....Not to mention 1,000s and 1,000s on beaches worldwide defending freedom.THANKS WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN . So that cry baby ali could make millions FIGHTING in a boxing ring.

So, how dare Muhammad Ali change his name of his own free will at a time when WASPs were murdering, terrorizing, and in general oppressing people of the darker skin tone?

You know, I find it rather ironic that you feel you can beat on Ali for not wanting to kill people "in the name of his country he turned his back on", yet feel justified in sporting a username and avatar glorifying an actual group of people who turned their back on the United States in name of owning said people of darker skin tones.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's actually hypocrisy! Silly me.

[ConfederateSS]

------------I Fight against The U.S. Government....Who keeps us separated...Using labels like African,Asian,Latin Americans...Instead of us all being just Americans.My passport says ...U.S.CITIZEN.....nothing else...
------------If you haven't read my post about...Hippie/so called protesters...yelling murder,booing,America sucks...(which is allowed by the 1st amned.)...But spitting,throwing eggs/tomatoes etc(which is not protected under the 1st amend..but a civil rights violation...at my Father when he came home from Vietnam(also served in Korea)...It was the only time I seen him ashamed of being an American...And other things..read else where.....So that punk ass draft dodger the U.S. media made a god ..CAN GO TO,YOU KNOW WHERE....CLAY ....CLAY ....CLAY ....THAT'S YOUR NAME... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

[saxitoxin]

that punk ass draft dodger the U.S. media made a god

ARGGGH! ......... STUPID MEDIA!

SO GLAD REAGAN BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM.



AND AFTER HE WAS DONE ......... GEORGE BUSH CAME IN AND REMOVED THE MEDAL THE NEW YORK TIMES GAVE HIM FROM HIS NO-GOOD NECK!

[riskllama]

just heard on the CBC that he had a traditional Muslim funeral yesterday - whatever that entails. just sayin'...

[saxitoxin]

just heard on the CBC that he had a traditional Muslim funeral yesterday - whatever that entails.

Typically, traditional Muslim funerals start with burning the American flag and, after that, there's an orgy with a harem of 13 year-olds. All guests are then invited to assemble outside a synagogue which they spray paint with graffiti. It ends with everyone kneeling in front of a golden calf and smashing DVDs of Homeland Season 2.

Those are the major elements, anyways.

Sometimes there's also a buffet.

[riskllama]

that doesn't sound right at all.