Greek version
The "white oppressors", the "Europeans" that "oppressed Africans", the "whites" that built their empires upon "Africans' dead bodies"... How often has one to deal with such mental defecations in a typical conversation about racism and slave-handling? Instead of feeling guilty as "descendants of oppressors", we ought to examinate such issues by a purely rational aspect. George's spot provides you an elaborate counter-argumentation of four levels of pure rationality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The common denominator of the oppressors was NOT European origin. Arabs bought and sold Africans as slaves long before Europeans set foot in Africa, and some of the toughest slave-handlers stemmed from Arabic or even African tribes and cultures (i.e. Tippu Tip). There were, besides, countless Africans -particularly wealthy ones- who actively participated in the slave-handling of other Africans and helped Europeans and Arabs to carry it out. If you are looking for a common denominator of the oppressors, that is not some "racial origin", but economic wealth: Africans dealt not with "white" oppressors -there were many Arabs and Africans using people as slaves-, but rather with "rich" oppressors. That's the common denominator.
2. The grounds upon slave-handling took place were economical, and not racial. The racial theories of white superiority were used merely as pretexts, with the very purpose of justifying slaughtering and oppression, and were expressed in such ways that made even the most insignificant white soldier feel superior, to rape and kill with no compunction, and sincerely believe he was doing it for some "holy" purpose (i.e. converting africans to christianity). But that was a plain justification of the deed, and not its' origin. The groundings were economical intrests. There have been many places on the earth that were inhabitated by "inferior races", yet never had slave-handling, nor slave-workers in mines: they just didn't happen to have the richness of Africa. Hence, to blame someone racism instead of capicalism for what happened is, basically, fallacious.
3. Unwealthy Europeans were often as oppressed as the Africans. If there had been no organized slaughter against them, that was not only because there were no racial theories to justify them, but also that they would be rather dangerous for the oppressors: Leopold of Belgium, having his palace in his land, would not take the risk of his people revolving against him and burn his palace to the ground, by allowing the cops of his era to shoot them in case they didn't work well. But Africa was too far away from Belgium, and a revolution was of no risk for the physical security of him and his palace. Yet still, the poor men of Europe were oppressed.
4. In order to blame a group of people for a misdeed, one ought to prove that all or at least a majority of the people belonging to it was responsible. That means, one should prove that there was a considerable part of the "white" population that was responsible for the slave-handling. The typical european of the era was most likely unaware of what was actually going on in africa. Not to mention the fact that even if things were different, no modern European can feel shame and apologize for what his grandfathers did. It is as if one has a robber as a grandfather and is expected to apologize for robberies that took place before he was even born. Besides, to blame a misdeed on the Europeans in general is equally stupid and racist with blaming criminality on african-Americans because of some statistics.
13/2/2018
The "white oppressors", the "Europeans" that "oppressed Africans", the "whites" that built their empires upon "Africans' dead bodies"... How often has one to deal with such mental defecations in a typical conversation about racism and slave-handling? Instead of feeling guilty as "descendants of oppressors", we ought to examinate such issues by a purely rational aspect. George's spot provides you an elaborate counter-argumentation of four levels of pure rationality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The common denominator of the oppressors was NOT European origin. Arabs bought and sold Africans as slaves long before Europeans set foot in Africa, and some of the toughest slave-handlers stemmed from Arabic or even African tribes and cultures (i.e. Tippu Tip). There were, besides, countless Africans -particularly wealthy ones- who actively participated in the slave-handling of other Africans and helped Europeans and Arabs to carry it out. If you are looking for a common denominator of the oppressors, that is not some "racial origin", but economic wealth: Africans dealt not with "white" oppressors -there were many Arabs and Africans using people as slaves-, but rather with "rich" oppressors. That's the common denominator.
2. The grounds upon slave-handling took place were economical, and not racial. The racial theories of white superiority were used merely as pretexts, with the very purpose of justifying slaughtering and oppression, and were expressed in such ways that made even the most insignificant white soldier feel superior, to rape and kill with no compunction, and sincerely believe he was doing it for some "holy" purpose (i.e. converting africans to christianity). But that was a plain justification of the deed, and not its' origin. The groundings were economical intrests. There have been many places on the earth that were inhabitated by "inferior races", yet never had slave-handling, nor slave-workers in mines: they just didn't happen to have the richness of Africa. Hence, to blame someone racism instead of capicalism for what happened is, basically, fallacious.
3. Unwealthy Europeans were often as oppressed as the Africans. If there had been no organized slaughter against them, that was not only because there were no racial theories to justify them, but also that they would be rather dangerous for the oppressors: Leopold of Belgium, having his palace in his land, would not take the risk of his people revolving against him and burn his palace to the ground, by allowing the cops of his era to shoot them in case they didn't work well. But Africa was too far away from Belgium, and a revolution was of no risk for the physical security of him and his palace. Yet still, the poor men of Europe were oppressed.
4. In order to blame a group of people for a misdeed, one ought to prove that all or at least a majority of the people belonging to it was responsible. That means, one should prove that there was a considerable part of the "white" population that was responsible for the slave-handling. The typical european of the era was most likely unaware of what was actually going on in africa. Not to mention the fact that even if things were different, no modern European can feel shame and apologize for what his grandfathers did. It is as if one has a robber as a grandfather and is expected to apologize for robberies that took place before he was even born. Besides, to blame a misdeed on the Europeans in general is equally stupid and racist with blaming criminality on african-Americans because of some statistics.
13/2/2018
