Posted on 06/08/2021 6:16:03 AM PDT by SJackson
The New York Times published The 1619 Project by Nikole Hannah-Jones that says the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery. Slavery made the U.S. wealthy. The US original sin was racism. Our culture is built on racism and is an unchangeable part of our society.
The 1619 Project is based on CRT, cultural Marxist critical race theory -- only white racism matters and it is systemic in the U.S. It maintains that all blacks are victims (still slaves) and all white people are privileged oppressors (still masters). So there must be monetary and socialized atonement. This theory denigrates the black person as one who is unable to function without help from who? The rest of the world. The 1619 Project is a racist document.
Historians are finding many errors in the 1619 Project but the most glaring errors are what they are not finding -- what is missing. The 1619 Project history of slavery in the U.S. doesn’t mention that the Native American tribes had slaves when the Europeans came. In fact, slavery was the custom throughout recorded history worldwide. Instead, we’re told that US history starts with the arrival of the first ships with slaves to our shores. But where exactly did these slaves come from?
The history of African slavery in the US began with US merchants purchasing them on the West Coast of Africa from Muslim slave dealers. Due to Islamic jihad, the slave pens were filled with Africans. Part of the jihad battle booty was taking the conquered people as slaves.
Now there was a reason that the slave traders were Muslim. According to Islamic doctrine, all believers must emulate the Islamic prophet Mohammed who traded slaves, wholesaled and retailed slaves, gave and received slaves as gifts. He had Arab slaves, black slaves, white slaves, Christian and Jewish slaves. He had sex slaves. Slavery is enshrined in Islamic doctrine and is still practiced today. But this part of the 1619 Project history is left out.
Nikole Hannah-Jones probably doesn’t know about the Islamic doctrine of slavery. Few black people do. I taught for years at a historically black university, and there was sensitivity to the history of slavery, but only slavery based on the evil white men on wooden ships on the west coast of Africa. The professors and the students knew almost nothing about the history of jihad and Islamic slavery around the world.
Ignorance of the history of Islamic slavery could be seen at a talk I went to hear by a freed slave, Francis Bok, at Vanderbilt University. Only a handful of Blacks attended.
Mohammed’s first action as a wholesale slave dealer came in 617 AD when he conquered the third and last Jewish tribe in Medina. Hundreds of male Jews were executed, the children adopted into Muslim families. The women were wholesaled and the money used to buy armor, swords and horses for jihad.
Muslims have been in the slave business a thousand years before 1619. So Nicole Hannah-Jones needs to write a new book: The 617 Project.
Is there any book written about the worldwide history of slavery? If not, it’s time for one. And it should include the bloody history of Islamic slavery of blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and other religious adherents.
Slavery is an eternal part of the Islamic doctrine and still practiced by Muslims today.
Missing half? What is half of zero? What is half of a lie?
There’s still a missing half, this article doesn’t cover it.
The British Empire’s role in bringing slavery to the 13 colonies.
Or the million Europeans that were enslaved by the same Muslim Africans from 1500 until Jefferson ended it.
The Arabic word for slave and black is the same word.
From 1500?
Far earlier than that!
The Muslim corsairs and galleys in the Mediterranean Sea were preying on the northern coast to gather Christian slaves from the 700s.
Do you know what happened to those Christian peoples who refused to submit when the Muslims conquered Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Spain? Dhimmies or slaves.
As posted in other comments about slavery and North America/USA from gannett and natgeo which are hardly conservative:
http://blog.nationalgeographic.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gitn_1027_Slave-Trade-2.png
F
the race card and victim card are an excuse by losers to gain the unearned, the undeserved, and something for nothing
None of this really occurred until Columbus landed in the Caribbean and the ‘gold rush’ started with Spaniards wanting to come into the region. Empty ships for a period of time made the trip back to Spain. This set up the sales of sugar cane/rum...which filled the vessel returning. But sugar cane requires massive numbers of farm labor. That only worked a year or two with local natives...then they all disappeared. So the next idea was the invention of the triangle-trade system....selling goods in Africa to tribal units with slaves in their possession, and then transporting to the new world.
New Orleans, under the control of the French was the first group to bring trade into the Americas. Around a decade later...tobacco farmers in Virginia region brought them in. In this period of early 1500s to early 1600s...it’s just not that many who were brought in Orleans or the eastern seaboard.
I avoid mentioning religion. There was a large migration from Spain to northern provinces of Netherlands where the land could be flooded to thwart the Spanish. A majority of European ships were Nederlands until Cromwell put a stop to it. Next stop for these clever, vigorous migrants was New Amsterdam where they owned most of the slave ships in the triangular trade. They had Spanish & Portuguese surnames. I avoid the topic of religion. They weren’t Catholic
Inconvenient truths don’t make it into communist manifestos and historical contradictions receive air cover from the Slimes and the MSM
What about black tribes that sold other blacks?
There was no United States in 1619, so their premise is invalid.
In ABC, Arruba, Bonaire & Curacao,the local language spoken by 800,000, Papiamento, “chatting”, is Spanish, West African, Portuguese, and Hebrew
Same as Kwanzaa.
They make it up.
Actually, slavery in Europe had died out (it’s economically unfeasible, the serf system was cheaper) until the late Middle Ages, when Muslim raiders made heavy attacks on shipping in the Mediterranean. At one point, there were hundreds of thousands of Europeans in captivity. Slavery had never died out in Muslim lands, and if the captives were not ransomed, they would be sold in the Islamic slave markets, either as sex slaves, if they were young boys or women, or simply as laborers.
Entire religious orders were started to ransom back poor captives, and private individuals began acting as brokers for wealthy families who wanted to ransom back a captured family member. This happened particularly in Portugal, which had been invaded by the Muslims and still maintained contact with the North African Muslim slavers. The brokers would get 20% (a Quinta) of the price...and it obviously occurred to some of the more unscrupulous that they could get into the slave trade themselves, buying enslaved Africans from the Muslims (who had either captured them or bought them from their own tribal chiefs) and then reselling them.
This reintroduced the practice to Europe. It was widespread, although some countries (such as Spain) prohibited true chattel slavery, which was the Islamic type of slavery where the slave was a possession with no human or legal rights. They adopted codes which essentially made the slave a long-term (although unwilling) indentured servant. This meant the slave had certain rights, such as the right to marry, receive religious instruction, earn wages and buy his freedom or be freed by his owner. However, this was not always practiced and some countries, such as Portugal and England, seem to have ignored it altogether and gone all the way into chattel slavery and the buying and selling of slaves, Islamic style.
So we see the fingerprints of Islam all over slavery, even in its reintroduction to Europe and its extension to the US. The only good thing we got out of it was the establishment of the US Marines, formed to fight back against renewed Muslim piracy and slave-taking in the Mediterranean.
I believe the current thinking is that the black warrior tribes that enslaved and sold other blacks were “white adjacent,” and that this is just another expression of white supremacy and systemic racism.
Who sold the slaves to bring over?
Africa and Muslim nations still have slavery.
The native American Indians had slaves captured from other tribes.
Who stopped it all.. WHITE MEN 😁😁
That’s some privilege right there!!
When the only narrative you want is white man bad,any kind of truth gums up the lies....
True enough, but that's not where it actually began !
Slavery began as inter-tribal warfare in Africa - that's where it began, and occurred !
Warfare is a strategy of economic or geo-location conquest, with the losers either killed or inducted involuntarily into slavery to the winner.
It wasn't until African tribes learned that the British were willing to pay for slaves as workers that there was any profit motivation.
All this talk of "reparations" is directed at the "Deep Pockets" of whomever is deemed the cause of slavery,
when in fact, slavery began during tribal warfare in Africa, but since many of these areas are 'dirt poor', reparations payment is directed for financial retribution.
In other words, reparations should be realistically directed at African tribes, when slaves became an economic commodity.
Ask 'Commie-la' where and how her grandfather got enriched ..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
