Post by ascendinglark on Mar 7, 2008 3:01:25 GMT
I'm not sure if this is the right category to post this, but I thought it interesting anyway....
I came across this page on the BBC's pages on religion about the differences between the Atlantic slave trade as practiced by Britain and America, and the Islamic slave trade which was practiced for centuries longer. The standard left-wing whitewash of the issue is that "the African-Muslim slave trade was less severe and of a more humane nature than the American slave trade"....here the BBC is happy to oblige in perpetuating the whitewash...
Human rights that must be respected? Like for instance, the right for a man to keep his penis and to reproduce and have children? It is common knowledge that male castration was almost a given in the Islamic slave trade...
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-85410331.html
And again here:
Contrast descriptions like this with the almost fawning descriptions passed off as fact on the BBC page:
Unbelievable! And I guess that the morons at the BBC who published this have never read the transcriptions of interviews with hundreds of former African American slaves after their release in which many recounted often close relationships with their "massas".
Here is another non-BBC description of the differences between the Islamic and the American slave trades which the leftist goons at the BBC saw fit to conveniently ignore:
Again, read the BBC page and let me know if you think it's a fair representation! Just thought I'd share my observations on this.
Oh and another point which I almost forgot is that they make no mention of the fact that America and Britain ended the Atlantic slave trade by mobilizing their navies at great expense to themselves, while the Muslim world did no such thing and in fact practice slavery even to this day.
I came across this page on the BBC's pages on religion about the differences between the Atlantic slave trade as practiced by Britain and America, and the Islamic slave trade which was practiced for centuries longer. The standard left-wing whitewash of the issue is that "the African-Muslim slave trade was less severe and of a more humane nature than the American slave trade"....here the BBC is happy to oblige in perpetuating the whitewash...
Slavery played a significant part in the history of Muslim civilisation, but it was a form of slavery that was inherently different from the 'slave trade' in that the Muslim concept of slavery regarded those enslaved as people who had some, albeit fewer, human rights that must be respected
Human rights that must be respected? Like for instance, the right for a man to keep his penis and to reproduce and have children? It is common knowledge that male castration was almost a given in the Islamic slave trade...
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-85410331.html
The oddest aspect of Islamic slavery was the eunuch. Castrated male slaves became exceedingly popular in the Middle East sometime after the rise of Islam......Whatever the reason, eunuchs became fixtures of Muslim culture. Islam teaches against physical mutilation, so Muslims found themselves searching for loopholes. Many eunuchs were castrated in non-Muslim territory immediately before importation, in the belief that this somehow kept Islamic land pure; a business in commercial castration thus developed along the fringes of the Muslim world. (Prague is said to have specialized in this during the period when Islam imported many slaves from Europe.) Muslims later accepted castration within their own lands, so long as non-Muslims performed the deed
And again here:
In “The Hideous Trade” Jan Hogedoorn has calculated that the mortality rate due to the castration and subsequent forced marches, ended with barely 10% of those initially taken actually managing to reach those slave markets alive
Contrast descriptions like this with the almost fawning descriptions passed off as fact on the BBC page:
Under Islam slaves were considered people first, and then property. In the Atlantic trade slaves were considered property not people, and often just regarded as units of productive labour.....The owner-slave relationship could be kinder in Islam than in the Atlantic trade, and often more personal...
Unbelievable! And I guess that the morons at the BBC who published this have never read the transcriptions of interviews with hundreds of former African American slaves after their release in which many recounted often close relationships with their "massas".
Here is another non-BBC description of the differences between the Islamic and the American slave trades which the leftist goons at the BBC saw fit to conveniently ignore:
While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated, and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.
Again, read the BBC page and let me know if you think it's a fair representation! Just thought I'd share my observations on this.
Oh and another point which I almost forgot is that they make no mention of the fact that America and Britain ended the Atlantic slave trade by mobilizing their navies at great expense to themselves, while the Muslim world did no such thing and in fact practice slavery even to this day.
