Islamic Conquests vs. Western Colonization

Islamic conquest destroyed the Graeco-Roman civilisation wherever it went and replaced it with looting and nomadic pastoralism as the main economic activities as well as occasionalist zealotry as the pillar of its metaphysical worldview.

Western colonisation brought the values of Christianity, democracy, individualism and the belief in an afterlife for which it's worth to behave like a normal human to the New World.

>>2567126
>>2567102

however they both brought slavery.

>>2567140
There is an argument to be made however that it would be better to be a slave under arab rule then under european rule. Their kids weren't usually considered slaves unlike the west where it was a permanent cycle.

File: Boabdil.jpg (70KB, 564x704px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 564x704px

>>2567102
One is a more developed version of the other. It's no coincidence that Portugal and Spain, i.e. Al-Andulas, kicked off Europe's Age of Discovery. The concepts of colonisation were introduced to the West by the Umayyads.

>>2567244
yeah at least if you were a slave of the arab world, youd probably travel and see most of the Mediterranean. Just had to deal with the occasional rape and what not. But i suppose you have to be as humble as possible when youre a slave.

>>2567253
well Muhammad was actually pretty progressive for his time on slavery and Islam definitely reflected that

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

>>2567244
>Be me,
>African
>become slave to Arabs, most of my family are killed
>marched through Africa, abused, humiliated and on the cusp of death the whole time.
>Have dick cut off, bamboo catheter inserted into the wound by the Copts in Egypt because apparently this process is Haram but getting a subjugated Christian to do it is a loophole.
>Probably die here, buried up to my head in the sand.
>For whatever reason, don't.
>Spend the rest of my ignominious emasculated life being a mocked doorman for some savage as he rapes white women.
>"Oh well, at least i'm not a farm hand for some Englishman in a salubrious climate with a penis and a family"

>>2567246
This is absurd.

>>2567140
>implying the roman empire wasn't a slave state.

>>2567102
Both of them should had never happen

>>2567102

the Arabs build their whole economy around slavery killing or converting everyone on their way of conquest and being today still proud of their "achievements",
whilst the Europeans just took the resources and land and tried to "teach" the natives the way of the white men, in a way that modern day people are disgusted by.

>>2567102
Liberals only care about the Iberian conquests.

>>2567876
Spaniards tortured natives and africans then creating a racist system that made them the wealthiest, healthiest, and most educated

>>2567946

Mexican here, can confirm "we brout civilizzatione and shiet" is a /pol/ wet dream. Colonization was brutal in most places, the Spanish empire was the most racist shit that has ever popped up. Rule under the britons would've been better desu.

>>2567954
You wouldn't exist in the first place had the Britons colonised Central and South America. Mexico would be now a bigger Belize.

>>2567954
>population full of mestizos=racist

kek

>>2567126
Islam has been argued to be a "constinuation" civilization, after Greece and Rome. Alexandrian learning flourished within Islam, indeed Rumi, for one, was given a classical education based in the texts of Aristotle. The highest position for a Philosopher to occupy within the Islamic world was that of "second teacher", always second to Aristotle.

Islamic civilization arguably invented modern science. And much of the texts we have from the Greeks have been translated from Arabic.

A very good case could be made that the American judicial and constitutional system was inspired by Islamic Law. Thomas Jefferson had a translation of the Quran. Indeed, Locke took classes on Islamic law, which were taught at Cambridge, which itself was modeled on the Al-Azhar university in Cairo- the oldest higher learning institution in the world.

One difference that most people get wrong is how important religious conversion was to either conquest.

In places conquered by Muslims, they typically remained minority Muslim for centuries, five centuries in Egypt and Persia, there was never a majority in Spain.

Christian conquests either prevented locals from converting, or forced it immediately. Indians couldn't convert easily in the British Empire (they'd lose inheritances if they did), meanwhile a century of direct control over Africa resulted in mass forced conversions.

>>2567102
better looking buildings

>>2567972
>>2567954
Esto, los sudacas sois objetivamente subnormales.
Despues de que os murierais de gripe los anglos se habrian llevado millones de negros para reemplazaros.

File: civilization.jpg (125KB, 1400x807px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1400x807px

>>2567126
>Western colonization brought the values of Christianity, democracy, individualism and the belief in an afterlife for which it's worth to behave like a normal human to the New World.

Yep, as soon as I saw this thread I knew there would be at least one of you idiots.

>>2569150
it was catholic missionaries who exposed the abuse in the congo

>>2567102
Muslims were conquering in the name of Allah, Europeans were conquering in the name of Capital.

>>2569156

And yet Muslims didn't force the people they conquered to convert, while Christian conquests ended up majority Christian with two hundred years.

>>2567102

one required circumnavigation of the globe, the other didn't

Well Islamic conquest wasn't really about converting people in the start. The Arabs were super fucking elitist and didn't want any non-Arab to convert as they thought Islam was only for Arabs. The conquests themselves were usually just replacing the old governing bodies with Islamic ones and collecting taxes. The convert or die thing is pretty meme-tier, although it obviously did happen in places. Most of the converts to Islam were social converts and done by Sufi missionaries and merchants spreading the religion as the traded. Jizya was also not that bad in most cases, it was sometimes preferable to what either the Byzantines and Persians had been taxing the populations. There was also a big benefit to certain sects of Christianity to be under Islamic rule rather than Byzantine because Arians and the like were just Christians to the Muslims rather than heretics under Byzantines. Usually they were allowed to be judged by Christian laws rather than Islamic laws outside of really serious crimes.

The really nasty shit for western colonizations happens in the Americas and the really nasty shit for Islamic conquests happened in India. The Africans didn't fair so well under either, although in Islamic slavery children of slaves were not automatically slaves themselves and slaves held lots of important positions.

>>2568075

>only white people can be racist

>>2567946
>>2567954
Only if you were a Mexica fucking shit. The Spaniards honored their treaties with their Tlaxcalan allies, granting then a great deal of autonomy and authority within colonial society.

>>2569166
Spain to Malaysia

>>2569170
>The really nasty shit for western colonizations happens in the Americas and the really nasty shit for Islamic conquests happened in India. The Africans didn't fair so well under either, although in Islamic slavery children of slaves were not automatically slaves themselves and slaves held lots of important positions.

Hence why Sihkism was born. To directly combat muslims.

Also, weren't the chattel slaves of the Arabs simply castrated?

If only America had been smart enough to follow the Arab lesson that one

>>2569150

>Africa
>the New World

top kek

File: 1476377508035-vg.gif (973KB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 300x196px

>>2569104
>muh Greek philosophers
>John Locke and Thomas Jefferson inspired by Islam just because he took some classes
>Islamic civilization arguably invented modern science

>>2569188
>If only America had been smart enough to follow the Arab lesson that one

The American slave-owners who didn't want to pay foreigners for new slaves?

>>2569188
The castration thing is a myth since 90% of them would have died if that was the case.

>>2567102
Mexico would have been better under muslim rule imo. Christianity brought nothing of value to Mesoamerica which had a more sophisticated religion and worldview vs the black and white good vs evil shit the spaniards brought. And afterlife beliefs already existed in much of the americas.

>>2569188
Slaves in America were super expensive, so getting free ones seemed like the better idea.

>>2569180
They betrayed them too by the 1600s

File: 1457724062309-tv.png (64KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 200x200px

>>2569199
>which had a more sophisticated religion and worldview
not even a christcuck but kek

>>2569182

that's 180 degrees. The earth is a globe you know.

>>2569209
It's true if you are patient and wait for me to get home I can prove it.

File: Untitled.jpg (1MB, 4000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4000x2000px

>>2569214

>>2569196
>castration thing is a myth

stop lying, it's extremely well documented

>90% of them would have died

the death rate as a result of castration was nowhere near that high, but it was certainly substantial.

The overall death rate for male slaves certainly approached 90 percent though.

>>2569224

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you attempting to say Muslims created colonies in Florida and South America?

>>2567856
did that happen to most africans though?

>>2569238
it didn't happen to every single male slave, and the females were all taken into sex slavery.

So strictly speaking, no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XzThnFyjG0

File: 1467678618140-tv.jpg (48KB, 490x490px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 490x490px

>>2569199
if you've ever met a Christian you'd know that he will argue that God supports whatever the fuck he wants done, and that God has all the same prejudice that he has. It's such a joke to assume that Christians have ever actually followed their teachings, they introduced plenty of morally grey lessons that prepared Mexico for integration into the world much more easily than they ever could have slaughtering captives so the sun wouldn't kill them, and literally every Islamic country is shit so idk how you expect it would change anything for Mexico to be more culturally aligned with either indigenous or Islamic beliefs in a world surrounded by Christians. Their only problem really was the whole "spain" thing and none of their colonies really turned out all that well. Europe was able to flourish scientifically because it's so fucking easy to argue that christianity supports whatever the fuck you want it to support, and because the farce was such an elephant in the room that it inspired an entire generation of edgy enlightened liberals.

Christianity doesn't really get in the way of anything, at most it is your moral high ground and at the least it is an easily manipulated thing that can be bended when need be.

You sound like a typical college shit head that heard a few talking points from a professor and thinks he can make grand claims about culture and development.

>>2569150
>Belgium hired Blacks to keep order in the Congo and they chop'd off hands, therefore all of the European colonial experiences are negative
Nice fallacy.

>>2569104
Jefferson hated the shit out of Islam you dunce.

>>2569235
Spanish florida
Spanish South America

Portuguese South America
Portuguese Asia

Islamic Spain
Islamic Africa
Islamic ME
Islamic India
Islamic Malaysia

Fairly equivalent

>>2569245
>Implying secular humanism formed spontaneously and not slowly after several centuries.

>>2568075

Bitch nigga

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta#Other_terms

And each had a place in the hierarchy.

Like why the fuck would you make such a complex piece of shit that ends up being redundant as hell.

>>2569150
Oh look another product of the Western """" education """" system that thinks the Belgians chopped the limbs of Africans off as punishment and doesn't know that they were actually cut off by other Africans.

>Issue guns to Africans in order to enforce order in Belgian territory
>To prevent the Africans from using their guns outside of their official duties, institute a policy where shots fired must correlate to a verifiable body count thinking that no one could possibly be savage enough to cut peoples limbs off at random to make up the difference
>Africans proceed to use their guns to hunt bushmeat anyway and cut the limbs off of random villagers to make up the difference because Africa
>a hundred some odd years later people blame it on the Belgians because telling the truth about Africans be racist and shit

>>2569124
Muzzies like those jizya bux and also (for a time) viewed Islam as something for the Arab elite and didn't like to force conversions, though many Islamic leaders had no problem massacring populations they disliked.

Christians did a ton of awful shit once they got political power, and overall has a worse track record than Islamic governments until the last 150 years

>>2569206
this
>>2567954
it's hard to prove the British would have killed us all like in the US because the complex sedentarian Aztec and Inca cultures are quite different from the semi-nomad north american tribes who could not surrender, converted or agree to work like a slave once you conquer their land or kill their head of state. Also the Spanish didn't want to kill so many of us because it was better to own land in which there was a lot of indigenous people that could work your fields and my guess is the British would have done the same. You're retarded btw

>>2569132

>sudaca

>i'm from tamaulipas

you mad of my tall strong cowboy genes chilango manlet?

>>2569190

>pre-industrial americas

>photography

>>2569199

because the >DEUS VULT of the autistic cristero wars wasn't enough, no, we needed some pump ass >ALLAHU ACKBAR booming up so the americans could get pissed off and invade us

again

File: 1457885950695-tv.png (956KB, 793x754px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 793x754px

>>2569259
>grasping at historical anecdotes in some vain attempt to argue that science developed on the opposite side of the world as opposed to in Christian nations where virtually every major breakthrough that textbooks write about occurred

I'm sorry but you're retarded

>>2569267
Well, did the Belgians do anything to stop their subjects doing that in order to fulfill their obligations to the Belgians or did the Belgians condone it, after learning about it?

>>2569206
WRONG
>During the colonial period, the Tlaxcalans were successful in keeping the concessions granted to them by the Spanish crown. In 1585, when the territory of Tlaxcala was formally established, it roughly had the same borders as the old kingdom of Tlaxcala. While the neighboring territory of Puebla had some authority over this territory, the city of Tlaxcala remained independently governed until Mexican Independence in 1821.

>>2569267

>issue guns to africans

>issue guns to just colonized guys living in the iron age

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>issue them guns

>belgium

>>2569267
Africans under the command of European officers and NCOs.

>>2569257
>Spain and Portugal are the entire West

There were no Islamic colonies in the Americas. European colonization required way more advanced tech than the Muslim conquests, deal with it.

>he doesn't know what circumnavigation is

>>2569267
The Congo Free State was not Belgian territory, it was privately owned by Leopold II.

>>2569286
>>2569294
Haha actually chopping off limbs in Africa is still a very big thing. It happens today.

On the contrary no one can remember the last time a Belgian chopped an arm off.

>>2569307
And?

>>2569311
Belgians are obviously more civilized

>>2569304
Spain and Portugal were first.

It's not really that impressive to sail around Africa.

>>2569311
And so if you're going to pretend to be horrified about it in olden times you should be just as outraged right now.

>>2569286
Why would Belgians condone Africans embezzling their ammunition and maiming the local workforce they Belgians were reliant upon on to harvest rubber? The rubber which was the only reason they were dicking around risking malaria in the African jungle in the first place?

>>2569314
Haha wat

Any coastal journey of that length is impressive even in modern times. At least back then no one had to deal with African coast pirates

>>2569322
>At least back then no one had to deal with African coast pirates

>>2569321
Because it worked in meeting the quotas.

People don't tend to think in the long term. Otherwise, poisoning one's own rivers, hunting the last animals and felling the last trees wouldn't be that much of a recurring theme throughout human history. Just look at how climate change is handled even today.

>>2567126
Graeco-Roman civilisation was already destroyed by Christcucks.

File: Benguela_and_Agulhas_Currents_2.jpg (1MB, 4920x5368px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4920x5368px

>>2569314

>brainlet doesn't know about the issues associated with sailing around the Southern tip of the African continent
>doesn't know why the Dutch established Cape Town

stop posting here, you are completely uneducated and it shows. There's a reason it was a massively big deal back in the day.

>>2569272
>tamaulipas
Cuidado no te rebanen la mocha los carteles.
Yo soy español no sudaca indo asqueroso.

>>2567126
>values of Christianity, democracy, individualism and the belief in an afterlife for which it's worth to behave like a normal human to the New World.
Funny that none of that applies to pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization either.

>>2567140
Good point
Except slavery was already in a lot of places the europeans colonized

>>2569104
>A very good case could be made that the American judicial and constitutional system was inspired by Islamic Law. Thomas Jefferson had a translation of the Quran.

Jefferson owned a book, therefore it inspired America's founding principles. Yeah, really good case Ahmad.

Only religious orders actually gave a shit about conversion Colonists themselves couldn't care less, as long as the native populations either A) fucked off or B) worked for em.

File: john-green.jpg (33KB, 320x321px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 320x321px

>Colonialism is cool and badass and a net positive when nonwhites do it

>>2569132
What's up with you guys being racist to mexicans and calling them south American yet still going to mexico as immigrants even in modern day?

>>2569272
>spanish genes
>tall
Lmoa

>>2567102
Islam must die>

>>2569411
>racist
>mexicans

mexican isnt a race, enrique.

>>2569104
Go to bed Obama, your high.

The only main difference is brutality (Westerners weren't as brutal and ruthless) and the West didn't seek total cultural assimilation.

Rest of this thread is just /pol/beards

>>2569245
You seem to know very little of Mesoamerica religion outside of human sacrifice.

>>2569408
It works when non abrahamic religions do it. Look at rome pre christianity, persia, the greeks. The problem with abrahamic religions is that they have the arrogance to assume only their god is the true and only one.

>>2569272
mexican cartel shithole also this >>2569603

>>2569735
Does John Green have a positive opinion of the Romans?I don't even know.

>>2569741
He said they were Western version of the Mongols, which he loves. So that's probably a compliment.

>>2567862
they slave officers even

>>2567102
The muslims don't have it held against them today.

This could have been a great thread. However alot of /pol/tards here

>>2570246
You should get used to it by now these faggots are everywhere.

>>2570290
They are like isis they made a nation of faggots between boarders (get it)

>>2569693
>Westerners weren't as brutal and ruthless

File: good shit.png (728KB, 1165x1075px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 1165x1075px

>>2569314
>It's not really that impressive to sail around Africa.
Oh senpai keep 'em coming.

>>2569314
they weren't technically the first at all

>>2569334
Encouraging embezzlement and the destruction of your work force, does not "help in reaching quotas". The idea is nonsensical on it's face no matter how short sighted and profit driven you are. Belgians gain nothing from encouraging Africans to give each other the chop, even in the short term

File: arab-slave-trade.jpg (91KB, 612x408px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 612x408px

>>2569170
>The Arabs were super fucking elitist and didn't want any non-Arab to convert as they thought Islam was only for Arabs.

you're really saying this? they quite literally enslaved millions of africans simply for not converting then castrated them and took their wives as concubines

>>2569188
>Also, weren't the chattel slaves of the Arabs simply castrated?

Only specific ones that became a caste of eunuchs, like how it was in China and Byzantium. Most of them being castrated is a myth.

>>2569335
this.

people blame islam but it's a clear sign of an uneducated pleb.
islam wasn't even a thing when Theodosius """"""the great""""""" was in charge.

read up on that shit. christcucks were literally ISIS tier. a lot of ancient temples were actually destroyed by them at the time of theodosius

>>2572884
>Most of them being castrated is a myth

The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. Black boys between the age of 8 and 12 had their scrotums and penises completely amputated to prevent them from reproducing. About six of every 10 boys bled to death during the procedure, according to some sources, but the high price brought by eunuchs on the market made the practice profitable.

Some men were castrated to be eunuchs in domestic service and the practice of neutering male slaves was not limited to only Black males. “The calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace,” writes author Ronald Segal in his 2002 book, Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora.

>>2569155
No it wasn't. They were kept quiet until the cat was out of the bag.

>>2569313
>>2569318
But we aren't talking about now you faggot we are talking about THEN. THEN! This is /his/.

>>2574724
That was a good choice . Imagine how fucked up the Middle East is now but add a population of violence and crime-prone blacks to the equation. Lord knows America is paying for its mistakes on that front. The free labor was not worth it

>>2567244
They didn't have kids because the Arabs cut their dicks off to keep demand for new slaves up

>>2567954
Go back to Spain, then.

Oh wait, I forgot how Mexicans like larping as natives

>>2569321
It's Leopold who owned the Congo Free State anon.

Look the Officers wanted to MAKE SURE that native soldiers weren't using ammo for their own needs. So thus they said that if you KILL a person you must harvest a hand to show it as proof. As a consequence rubber quotas were paid off with cut hands because the punishment for FAILING TO MEET THE QUOTA was a chopped hand. Since the quotas were absurd many times people had to resort to cutting other villages hands off to be able to meet the quota.

Thus the policy ended up making a twisted system that made hands a currency

Why do people obsess and the castration part of the Arab slave like they have some fetish for it even though it was limited heavily.

>>2574774
It's like I'd a bunch of white Canadians suddenly decided they were actually aboriginal and demanded everyone else recognize their made up snowflake race.

>>2574790
It was common practice

>>2569206
Can you blame them though? Even if your masters are good to you, chances are you don't want masters at all.

>>2569693
I think you should read about the Caste system in Spanish America

>>2567102
You're not going to get educated answers, but instead just /pol/ stupidity. Better seek historians on this.

But to sum it up, Western colonization was an accelerated competition between Westerners to see who could get the most important territories. The people they ruled over weren't important, and Western powers couldn't really afford to be "nice" since they were competing. The French had to get a lot from Africa because they were competing with the English. Therefore, any of their destructive policies could easily be justified and carried out since there was always that other Westerner you wanted to best. The conquests of Muslims was different. It started at first by Arab warfare against empires that used Arab as proxies and set of a chain of battles that led to a quick defeat of very warring states. Further, the Arab conquests mostly took over lands that the Romans and Sassanians were not native to or based in (Mesopotamia, Levant, North Africa).

There were other differences of course, Muslim rulers imposed tax on Christian males (but also had their own tax on Muslims). That tax wasn't required if the Christians were an allied tribe. However, Muslium rule largely didn't really impose a new law but rather would have the community rule their own.

Western colonization imposed their laws on others as best they could. In fact, many Western laws set by colonial powers still exist in Middle Eastern today.

Western colonization took a lot of wealth from the places they conquered. Muslim conquests wealth that they took would go to ruler who would be based in that city and whatever expenses they spent would usually be spent locally. The loads of goods that the Brits got from India for example went back to Great Britain.

Muslim conquests generally resulted in a successor state based locally with an administration often run by locals. Western colonization was always run by Westerners.
Slaves became rulers of Muslim dynasties, unlike Western ones.

>>2574724
>“The calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace,
How did he get such numbers and how the fuck would he know how many whites there were when that category in the past didn't even exist?

Those numbers sound like Biblical accounts with how many concubines certain figures had or how many gold/copper they would have, which is to say exaggerated to indicated wealth and power.

The importance to have castrated male slaves was for them to be around the ruler's women(family, wives, etc...). 11 000 sounds is an insane exaggeration.

>>2574762
It's not true, there are plenty of "Blacks" in Iraq today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iraqi

There are 500 000 in a nation of 30 million. To claim that the male slaves were usually castrated is insane.

And those Afro-Iraqis are not the descendant of Female Zanj+ Arab/Persian elites or else they wouldn't look really black over the generations since they'd always need black males to reproduce with.

>>2574874
Those Muslims were just gosh darn nice fellas.

If only they had dealt with the white question when they had the chance.

>>2574724
See >>2574894

Current numbers in Iraq refutes your historical assertions.q

>>2574895
I didn't depict Western colonials as evil (well maybe Spaniards would be an exception).

Anglos, French, etc... were very obsessed with competing against each other, getting a certain territory first. Doing whatever it took to get prevent Russia from growing stronger later on. This is why some of their actions were extreme, they had their eyes set on bigger problems than giving much of a crap of what happened locally.

In fact a lot of Western colonial actions were not pragmatic as a result. The subsequent impatient anger over the various "savages" that refused to bow down gracefully is what led to the racist tirades. This impatience was born out of Westerners hunger to best the other Westerner, much less to do at first with hating the lesser races. It's not like they entered Africa with the thought of wanting to cleanse the negro.

But one can't be politically correct as well. Actions like the opium war is by far one of the most evil things ever done in human history.

>>2574724
Slaves were used in places that weren't royal palace as well. I am not saying slaves weren't castrated, I am saying palace eunuchs were special similar to eunuch caste of China and most slaves weren't palace slaves. There also has been things like galley slaves, mine slaves, household slaves, farm slaves etc. that weren't castrated.

>>2569693
>the West didn't seek total cultural assimilation.
Neither did Muslims. The fact, especially before 20th and 21st century), the Middle has Druze, Lebanon being mostly Christian, Morocco being mostly Berber speaking, Anatolia being very multicultural before the end of the Ottoman empire, important Jewish communities spread throughout the region that remained until Arab Israeli conflict, and a lot of different sects and religions like Yazidis indicate at most no serious attempt at total cultural similarity.

In fact most Muslim dynasties were very similar to how Ancient Persian empires would do things. Of course they weren't perfect, neither was the Sassanian empire when Shapu II executed a bunch of Christians. But generally they didn't seek cultural assimilation. Arabic became the langua franca of the Middle East was already Afro Asiatic, especially Semitic (the groups Arabic belong to).

South America had a far much more different language, cultures and religions yet today there isn't that much difference between Latinos and today's Iberians.

A lot of the anti-cultural diversity shit in contemporary mid east is the result of nationalistic ideology that closely mirror nationalistic European ones in order to create ethno states : Arabism like Baathist, Turkish nationalism, Zionism, etc...

>>2569268
>overall has a worse track record than Islamic governments until the last 150 years
The last 50. much of WW1 and WW2 are hard things to ignore. But then again, the states in those conflicts were more secular than Christian.

>though many Islamic leaders had no problem massacring populations they disliked.
Those were usually Turkic-Mongols leaders. An important example is Tamerlane who was not a kind guy to say the least. His massacres against various people was done to both Christians of Caucasus who opposed him and Muslim Syrians. Interestingly enough he made a tower of Syrian skulls.

>>2574887
>how the fuck would he know how many whites there were when that category in the past didn't even exist?
I am flabbergasted by the idea that anyone could actually be this cucked. No seriously how brainwashed do you have to be to think that ancient people couldn't tell the difference between an African and a European because "race is a social construct"?

>>2574887
>that category in the past didn't even exist

you're an idiot.

>>2572454
>they quite literally enslaved millions of africans simply for not converting
Millions of Africans? That's an exaggeration. The few millions would be the total the Europeans and Africans took in hundreds of years. A reason for why the Zanj for example were enslaved was because of more labor needed when the Abbasid regions needed more work as result of more expansion of projects. Zanj were seen in negative live by some scholars at that time for being quite savage and they weren't mincing words.

Zanj were not enslaved for refusing to convert. There wasn't any incursion to enslave them, Arab powers never conquered subsaharan Africa or anything south of Egypt.
The slaves they got were sold to them by traders.

There was also a revolt that was fought by the Zanj that happened that was quite destructive. Most of the rebels interestingly enough were Arabs supported by Zanj who made the area around the Persian Gulf their new home.

>>2574983
>The few millions
And by "few" millions I meant from 1 to 10 millions, not claiming that a million is small number.

>>2574971
The white category didn't exist under Abbasid times you retard. Try to show a single source of that time using the word white to refer to a group of people. You can't.

>>2574988
>specifically using the word white

they spoke a different language, idiot.

>>2574970
>I am flabbergasted by the idea that anyone could actually be this cucked. No seriously how brainwashed do you have to be to think that ancient people couldn't tell the difference between an African and a European because "race is a social construct"?

How the fuck is "white was not a category in Abbasid times" anywhere as equivalent to "No one could tell the difference between Africa and European"?

You're so retarded, I don't even know where to start with your bullshit.

For one, African are a very diverse group. A Habesha looks very different than a Congolese, and the two look very different from North Africans. Many Europeans would look similar to north Africans. So the dichotomy, at least in phenotype, is nonsensical.

Your idiotic American understanding of races was not present 1200 years ago. "White" was not a thing. People thought of themselves based on tribe and bigger identities like Greek, Arab, Persian, Greek, Zanj, etc...

>>2574991
Learn to read retard. I specifically said"how the fuck would he know how many whites there were when that category in the past didn't even exist" in response to "and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace".

And the ancients did differentiate between language and ancestry, dumbass.

>>2574983
>Millions of Africans? That's an exaggeration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade#Africa:_8th_through_19th_centuries

>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
>Luiz Felipe de Alencastro states that there were 8 million slaves taken from Africa between the 8th and 19th centuries along the Oriental and the Trans-Saharan routes.[119]
>Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau has put forward a figure of 17 million African people enslaved (in the same period and from the same area) on the basis of Ralph Austen's work.[120][page needed] Ronald Segal estimates between 11.5 and 14 million were enslaved by the Arab slave trade.[121][122][123][page needed]

here's some basic bitch reading for you

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/

>>2575007
None of those statistics are based in any scientific reasoning or credible primary historical sources. If there were really millions, you'd see a shit lot of them everywhere in the Mid East. Of course there's the excuse that they'd have died during their journey but that can be used to inflate any slave trade.

I can believe the shitload of European slaves taken to the mid East because there is good genetic evidence to show this. But the African claims are grossly exaggerated.

>>2575007
>http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/
Bullshit afrocentrism to push the oppressed black victim narrative in America. But hey, at least it's not "we wuz kangs" nonsense.

File: man_thinking.jpg (12KB, 228x318px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 228x318px

>>2575013
>WE WUZ SLAV-

>wait...

>>2575023
kek!

>>2575013
>you'd see a shit lot of them everywhere in the Mid

not if they were fucking castrated

>scientific reasoning
>credible primary historical sources

lol, whatever you need to tell yourself. The sources are right there, are you going to deny the Armenian genocide next too?

File: 1480667644769.jpg (57KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x427px

>>2569238
If more than half had their penis cut off, then how cold they have had babies?

File: Aztec_smallpox_victims[1].jpg (531KB, 1225x900px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 1225x900px

Materially? Around 50 million Spaniards didn't die from disease.

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>2575050
It would be extremely painful

File: images-cms-image-000024085.jpg (55KB, 620x300px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 620x300px

>>2575023
Think about it, if you say "we wuz always slaves" you're essentially saying "hey fellow blacks, we need more unity amongst ourselves, can't trust anyone." and it's also a "let's get reparations from other groups and a constant apologies".

Nevertheless, that Afrocentrism is an idiotic position since there is no such thing as black in the sense that many East Africans have a different history than West African blacks. Even ignoring North Africa, the rest of continent is far diverse to fit into any groups.

There's a reason why afrocentrists like to ignore the importance of Ethiopians in the Arab slave trade and previous ancient slave trade and it's the same reason why they always want to play the victim.

>>2575036
>not if they were fucking castrated
Like I said, it's a poor excuse and it's unfounded See >>2574894

Numbers of black in Iraq refutes your assertion.

>hurr durr primary sources are irrelevant, what matters is historical revisionism only.

Not all sources are equal and no sources should be blindly believed in.

>Armenian genocide

Why would I deny the killing of millions (or at least a million) of Amernians? The only thing some people (usually Turks) reject is the notion the Ottoman government had any involvement in the killings and that the killings were one sided. No Turk really denies that more than a million of Armenians died. In fact they're proud of it. They admit they were better at killing than the Armenians.

I'm not a Turk anyway. I believe that it was a genocide and that's it's irrelevant if Ottomans partook or not. I also believe Armenians have to blame the actions of some of their own for betraying the Ottomans but that the massacre of civilians is never justifiable.

On the other hand, /pol/ loves to deny the Holocaust and refuse to admit a large number of Jews were killed.

>>2575050
It's Kek magic. But seriously, you're expecting a poltard to understand how sex works.

File: 13-12.jpg (205KB, 401x600px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 401x600px

Don't mind me, just posting pictures of so called castrated Subsaharan African male slaves.

>>2575078
>all male slaves were castrated

nobody claimed this

>>2575013
>European slaves taken to the mid East because there is good genetic evidence to show this. But the African claims are grossly exaggerated.

>>2575061
>Numbers of black in Iraq refutes your assertion
>>2575078

choose one

File: b5484bf17a3f5f34d0491742ccb1101e.jpg (17KB, 236x290px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x290px

>>2575082
The claim was that almost all of them were or that almost all of them died See this>>2569230

It doesn't make sense that most of them would be castrated when there are half a million Afro Iraqis who look just as "black" as some Subsaharan Africans. And most of the significant slave import in Iraq was done a thousand years ago.

>>2575094
>death rate for male slaves certainly approached 90 percent
>almost all of them died

not quite.

>half a million

Do you know how population grows over time, or are you completely unaware of how exponents work? Give a relatively small population a thousand years and you can easily hit large numbers. Let's say an unaccosted population growth rate of 1% a year, 50 people hit over 1,000,000 in 1000 years.

Nobody is suggesting only 50 blacks survived.

File: articleLarge.jpg (66KB, 600x330px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x330px

Even according to liberal New York times's article about Arab racism, there are 1.2 million Afro Iraqis (largr than the 500 000 claim).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/world/middleeast/03basra.html
But never mind empirical evidence, fantasies say most slaves were castrated!

>>2575085
Those claims are in response to different assertions.

The large number of blacks in Iraq are largely descendant of black males and females, which refutes the assertion about castrated African males being the majority of African male slaves.

The high amount of Europeans in Mid East were absorbed and left a significant mark on Middle Eastern and especially North African (as in native) genetic makeup.

If you want to claim that there were millions of Africans alone take to the MENA region, then there has to be plenty of populations like Afro-Iraqis throughout the region or that there is a greater Subsaharan African component in MENA genome than the European component.

Barbary slave trade was expected to have 1 to million Europeans. That's less than the numbers of Africans proposed by idiots in this thread. Yet the evidence is greater about European impact on MENA genome.

In short, there is more likely to be that most slaves were indeed European, that the number of African slaves are exaggerated and that the significant population of Afro Iraqi which match primary historical sources about the Zanj show in fact that most male slaves were not castrated.

>>2575120
>1.2 million
you only need 50 people to get that number with a 1% growth rate in 1010 years you know

nobody knows how many died in the Zanj Rebellion

>he thinks European genetics in MENA is because of slaves taken after the rise of Islam

oh man, do I have to bust out the haplotype graphs now?

>>2575061
You are really all over the place.

>>2575115
90% is "almost all of them died". You can't continue with 10% of males contributing to gene pool that results in half a million to 1.2 million Afro Iraqis when a significant amount of those surviving 10% would still be castrated.

>Do you know how population grows over time, or are you completely unaware of how exponents work?
In successful states like the West? Sure. But in the Mid East, the odds of a former slave children surviving are very low.

Liberals love to ignore how well Whites treated African slaves in terms of health and letting them mate. The problem with American slave system is that the slaves kept suffering big segregation but the way the capitalism system was set later on helped slaves grew in number.

But this is vastly different from slavery in Middle East, or in this case specifically Iraq. First the slaves are much older than the slaves brought up in America. Making sure the next generation lives on to reproduce successfully is much harder to do in 9th century Iraq than in 17th or 18th century America.

>Let's say an unaccosted population growth rate of 1% a year, 50 people hit over 1,000,000 in 1000 years

This is retardation at its highest. You're ignoring the severe effect of inbreeding at the result of such bottleneck in population. 50 people won't hit 1000000 in 1000 years because of high levels of inbreeding.

>>2575133
and I mean really hard to understand. Lie you had a point then you went stupid with it when your point already stood on it's own already. Pretty idiotic of you.

>>2575061
>Think about it, if you say "we wuz always slaves" you're essentially saying "hey fellow blacks, we need more unity amongst ourselves, can't trust anyone." and it's also a "let's get reparations from other groups and a constant apologies".

How do you get that from that article. It's shut showing the Arab slave trade. No need to have a heart attack over it and sperg out.

>Nevertheless, that Afrocentrism is an idiotic position since there is no such thing as black in the sense that many East Africans have a different history than West African blacks. Even ignoring North Africa, the rest of continent is far diverse to fit into any groups.

How the hell do you fucking get Afro-centrism form THAT?

>There's a reason why afrocentrists like to ignore the importance of Ethiopians in the Arab slave trade and previous ancient slave trade and it's the same reason why they always want to play the victim.

I remember when Afro centrists used to mean something or had a meaning.

>>2575134
>ignoring the severe effect of inbreeding at the result of such bottleneck in population

dude the entire homo sapiens was once at 1000 total pop.

>50 people won't hit 1000000 in 1000 years because of high levels of inbreeding

That's why there were probably more than 50 of them. I was attempting to demonstrate the effect of exponential population growth over time, the actual growth rate was probably lower than 1%.

>>2575132
>>2575132
>you only need 50 people to get that number with a 1% growth rate in 1010 years you know
Stop repeating this bullshit, you fucking idiot. You're not smart at all.

50 people can never ever result in 1 000 000 except in your biblical nonsense or in sci fi. The amount of dysgenic breeding will severly limit the number of surviving individuals.

The biggest bottleneck humanity experience was the result of the Toba explosion and according to that hypothesis, 1 million humans were reduced to 3000 - 10000 individuals. And that's the biggest bottleneck scientists accept.

>nobody knows how many died in the Zanj Rebellion
Most fighters were Arab tribes.

>oh man, do I have to bust out the haplotype graphs now?

You don't have any that support any of your bullshit assertion.

>>2575133
It's hard to keep things simple when there are lots of bullshit points with no evidence that are claimed.

>>2575135
It's not hard to understand, follow the conversation tree.

Maybe it'd be easier if they were ID's. But then again, considering you can't even write a sentence properly, you shouldn't be talking about others have a hard time explaining something. I mean, what the fuck is this sentence?

>Lie you had a point then you went stupid with it when your point already stood on it's own already.

Too many vague obliques in the sentence.

>>2575142
>How do you get that from that article.

I didn't claim that was from the article alone.

>How the hell do you fucking get Afro-centrism form THAT?

It's an afrocentric website.

>I remember when Afro centrists used to mean something or had a meaning.

Then you conveniently forgot and use their own websites when you never would if it was an argument against /pol/

>>2575144
>>2575144
>dude the entire homo sapiens was once at 1000 total pop.
It was 3000 to 10000 And it took 10000s of years to reach a million. The argument about 50 to a million in 1000 years is retarded.

>I was attempting to demonstrate the effect of exponential population growth over time, the actual growth rate was probably lower than 1%.
You're assuming the growth rate wouldn't be negative at some years. Again, all fantasy, no logic, no facts.

Even harry potter has less plotholes.

File: black-Iraqi-begs-570.jpg (36KB, 570x329px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 570x329px

Apparently, the penis isn't necessary in giving birth only strong lesbian love...

>>2575145
Don't forget this is the Middle East we're talking about, which has had a nearly stagnant or declining population since Roman times up until the colonial era.

When the population of Egypt barely changed in a thousand years, how would a tiny African population be able to maintain such a constant rate of growth?

>>2575161
>argument about 50 to a million in 1000 years is retarded

it's not an argument, it's literally a calculation using P(t) = P(0) e^rt. Take 1% of 50, add to total, rinse and repeat 1000 times gives you 1101323.

>wouldn't be negative at some years

I'm assuming the average rate of growth would be positive, or else they would have disappeared by now. I'm sorry you are humanitiesfag and can't into math.

>>2575145
see
>>2575187

>durr how do I basic middleschool tier math


>50 people can never ever result in 1 000 000

see

>>2575144
>That's why there were probably more than 50 of them. I was attempting to demonstrate the effect of exponential population growth over time, the actual growth rate was probably lower than 1%.

you severely autistic faggot

File: black iraqis in Basra.png (418KB, 503x426px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 503x426px

>>2575184
Exactly. It's nonsense to expect a tiny African population of males to continue to grow. The idiot thinks how the opportunities that allowed for population growth that the North American system provided for is anywhere as similar as the fucking Middle Eastern during the Middle Ages and late antiquity.

>>2575187
Have you done calculus beyond the first year in university? Grown rates are never ever constant in the real world, you dummy.

>>2575187
>I'm assuming the average rate of growth would be positive, or else they would have disappeared by now
I said it'd be negative in some years, not constantly negative you retard. I'm actually a Elec Eng student but I'd suggest you to take a few Humanities courses. Who knows, perhaps an idiot like you can learn how to read. And don't claim you're good at math, you're barely at the beginning. You haven't seen advanced maths yet and probably won't see it.

>>2575187
>>2575199
See
>>2575184

Not him, but you're just trying to save face now with a ludicrous point. Sure, in some?sort of controlled lab joy could run a simulation that sees 50 turn into a million eventually. But human population hasn't worked like that for most of our time on this planet, else there's be trillions of us by now.

>>2575199
You're a retard for trying to think rates remain constant. They don't. You're unnecessarily replying to a post twice when the last green text is something I already refuted.

Basic middle school math doesn't assume changing rates you maniacal gremlin.

>>2575208
I'm the guy who was arguing against the slavery claim. To be honest, I kinda fucked in explaining some of my previous arguments and I was going to stop replying. But then he went full retard with the human population growth going from a few to million. He easily wins the Darwin awards for this whole thread.

>>2575184
Also, Iran's populations suffer a big reduction as a result of the Mongol invasion and they didn't regain their previous population level until the early 20th century. And these are mostly settled Iranians who are some of the oldest people who participated in agriculture and urban life. For them to take over 600 to 700 years to get millions back in growth indicates constant population growth is hard to keep like you said. Let alone some former Black slaves that would be discriminated against by the Arabs and could get caught between violence from other groups.

He's serverly undersetimating how sl

>>2575226
>He's severely underestimating how hard it is to keep a constant rate of growth.

Fixed. Also maybe he's going to say that Blacks had big dicks and that's why others couldn't compete in reproduction...

>>2575115
>death rate for male slaves certainly approached 90 percent

source?

>>2575144
>dude the entire homo sapiens was once at 1000 total pop.

there was once only two also