all 48 comments

[–]BISH 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The word slave is derived from Slav.

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then they deserve it even more. No wonder blacks wanted out of it; it’s so degrading, demeaning, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and deefromwhatshappening to be named after some gross disgusting vile filthy European piece of shit.

[–]agent_pecan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

we need reparations from blacks and jews

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You will not get one red penny from us, but we will take back everything you took from us by force. If you resist, we will eliminate you.

[–]UncleWillard56 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

As the author mentions, this just doesn't fit into the narrative.

The Kefala System is alive and well in muslim countries. They even have apps where families who entice an African or Filipino domestic servant (slave), can sell their contract to another family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxz-vmbFXd4

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yet another reason to bring back the war on terror.

[–]BISH 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Many Muslim ship captains who raided Spanish coastal cities were Jewish. The most important of these was Sinan, called “The Great Jew,” who would later be called the Muslim name of Kaptan Pasha.

[–]chottohen[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I guess he didn't want to give Jews a bad name. 😬

[–]JewsAreOfColor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bullshit.

[–][deleted]  (38 children)

[deleted]

    [–]chottohen[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    They were too far away?

    [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (35 children)

    One can only speculate. But given that the mongols were raiders they likely would not be good workers. Today they would be like the leaches who demand socialized everything so they can refuse to work while living off the labor of others.

    [–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

    I suspect you'd have mongols enslaved by whatever power was conveniently located to enslave them. There's a fairly extensive history of slave labor in China and no doubt they would have enslaved some mongols. Though I do believe the mongols also ruled China at some point. Being a nomadic people they tended to move around quite a bit.

    Mongolia itself is even today a fairly undeveloped land consisting mostly of arid areas not well suited for agriculture. It's a wonder the Mongol empire grew so large in such an inhospitable environment, but I suppose the hard life of the steppes bred superior warriors.

    It seems to me, if I were a medieval lord who obtained a Mongol slave, they would be better suited being in my service as a warrior than a laborer. As such I doubt many ended up as true "slaves" in our modern understanding of the word. Though I doubt many at that time were truly free. Just as true freedom eludes many today. After all he who believes he is enslaved may attempt escape but he who believes he is free won't even consider it.

    [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

    Mongolia itself is even today a fairly undeveloped land consisting mostly of arid areas not well suited for agriculture.

    I don't buy the premis that the land determines how the people there live. Africa is also relatively undeveloped despite having the best farming conditions anywhere. Yet in gloomy, cold, high latitude england there are farms surrounded by walls of rocks that were pulled from the soil.

    Some people are industrious and develop solutions, others are lazy and can't be bothered to do the bare minimum.

    [–]Alienhunter 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    I think the climate has a lot to do with that. It's no coincidence that warmer climes developed more laid back lazy cultures and colder climes produced more industrious cultures.

    If you're a lazy culture in a cold climate you'll freeze to death and die in the winter. If you're an industrious culture in a hot tropical climate you'll die from heat exhaustion if you try to work during the head of the day instead of napping in the shade.

    Granted the climate is far from the only factor.

    Africa has a lot of geographic issues that prevent the formation of the large sophisticated cultures we see in Europe and Asia. Namely large navigable rivers and ports that don't open directly into the open ocean. The Nile is an exception to this and it's no surprise there that a large sophisticated cultures of the Egyptians formed there.

    I think given enough time, Africa likely would have developed more complex civilizations, same as the west as technological progress moved forward. But on any planet the most favorably placed cultures will grow first and dominate the weaker cultures via colonisation and mercantile economic systems.

    Humans are resilient and can live in practically any environment but the level of civil progress doesn't have much to do with their industrious nature. Assume dolphins more intelligent and industrious than humans, they'll never develop into a complex civilization because they live in the ocean. Lack materials needed to make complex tools and societies. And as such will never evolve into a form that allows for complex civilization and will forever be confined to a featureless realm of water in the open sea living only to eat what food they can catch.

    Similar patterns of life would probably develop on the gas giants.

    It seems reasonable to assume that terrestrial planets with relatively mild climates are necessary for the development of civilization. The Inuit are no less human than the Romans and spread over an extremely large area let never developed a civilization as such because all their energies needed to be devoted to survival in the harsh climate they lived in until very recently. They can't be considered to lack industrious spirits since they managed to survive in that frozen hellscape for millenia, but you can't expect such a culture to adapt to the complexities of urbanized civilization within a short period of time.

    [–]Gaslov 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    This is a very strong argument. It follows as a civilization becomes advanced and generally easy, it collapses. Do we artificially make everyone miserable to obtain the best of humanity? Is engineered scarcity a necessary evil? Is this the real reason communism ultimately fails because, ironically, it truly does achieve its stated goals?

    [–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I think simply as society becomes more complex there's more ways to engage in "profiteering" not the pursuit of profit as such, there's nothing wrong with setting out to make money, but the pursuit of profit in a way that doesn't create any real value towards society.

    In a very small community you can't do this, you need to be engaged in a business that helps your survival be that what it may. In a very large civilization there's any number of pursuits that can support you and give you a lot of money but don't necessarily produce anything of value for society.

    DEI programs are a good example of that sort of thing now, grifting in essence is this, a parasitic business that seeks to get into the process of production and skim off it's share of the profits while providing nothing of value itself.

    Landlords are the classical Marxist example of profiteering but it's a bit more complex then simply collecting rent. There's nothing wrong with renting out rooms and collecting rent on them. The issue comes when people are otherwise unable to purchase their own land for habitation due to high prices and the land ownership end up consolidated in the control of a small few who simply collect rent by virtue of owning the land but don't necessarily need to provide any service that is equivalent to the price they are receiving, if they form a kind of oligarchy or cartel they can collude amongst themselves and raise the prices artificial of any real market forces which trends towards inflationary pressures.

    Thing is complex societies can produce far more wealth and are better for even the poorest residents of them, but they're also susceptible to corruption. And the bigger the society and the more complex the more avenues of corruption form and the harder it is for any one person to understand what is going on, identify, and stop the corruption.

    Look at the art world for a fairly obvious example. We laugh and jeer and the rediculous nonsense people spend obscene amounts of money on. Digital tokens of poorly drawn monkey's? And overripe banana glued to a wall. A bunch of used tampons? Million dollar works of art. Or not, art is purely subjective, we like to jeer at this and use it as a claim that society has declined, and that's true in a way, but the joke is that we accept these things as "art" in the first place, and not the obvious money laundering that it is, because society has essentially given us this complex ideal that "art, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder" true to some extent, but obviously not applicable to spending millions on a pile of trash.

    [–]Gaslov 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    One problem with the theory of climate and discomfort driving industry and advanced society is that the Americas had similar climates but those people didn't develop much further than the Africas. China, on the other hand, has a lot of tropics, yet developed comparably, if not better, than Europeans for most of history, such as reaching the crossbow and gunpowder use long ahead of Europeans.

    [–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    China is a very huge country and has any number of different climates. But it also has the geography and climate for large scale agriculture which is what drove civilization there. Most of China is subtropical and has fairly strong seasonal changes and doesn't really classify as a tropical climate. The main difference between China and Europe I think is that in China they largely developed inland due to their trading routes being primarily overland and never developed the naval traditions of Europe due to the lack of a Mediterranean equivalent which caused their society to begin to lag behind the west when mercantilism was adopted.

    The Americans had several well developed civilizations including the development of writing with the Maya which is a very significant step in the formation of an advanced civilization. But they didn't develop technologically equivalent to Europe for a number of reasons. One is simply time. American civilization was far younger because it took far longer for people to get there, and then since it was a relatively few people who crossed the land bridge before it sank, it took a considerable amount of time to build a population necessary for the creation of large complex civilizations.

    They were well on their way at the time of European colonization however. There were some truly impressive architectural feats as well as irrigation and land reclamation projects. But they had several disadvantages compared to Europe as well. One being the total lack of large domestic animals for labor. There was the Llama in south America but they aren't very strong. And I believe dogs were domesticated, but that's it. No oxen or horses. Buffalo were never domesticated.

    Then there was also the lack of the wheel which is a truly bizzare case of technological divergence. And there was the lack of genetic diversity that made the American aboriginals somewhat susceptible to plagues which further hindered societal development. It's theorized that even before the smallpox epidemic a different plague had decimated the North American population.

    It's interesting to think about how North American society would have developed if there had never been European contact. I suspect they'd have a largely medieval level of technology at the present day and you'd see the Maya be the dominant cultural force likely colonizing and subduing the planes indians.

    Though it's worth noting that there were some relatively sophisticated cultures in North America as well. Whomever built the Mesa Verde and other indian "castles" in the south west for example. Though these people had vanished by the time Europeans arrived and they left nothing of their culture behind since they never developed writing besides their domiciles and pottery. I suspect plague or climate shift making their agriculture fail.

    [–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I think hard conditions make farming tech more necessary not less.

    When you can just go pick a ripe fruit off a tree which will give you all the calories you need for that day you don't invest asc much energy in getting food.

    [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    An industrious people who lived in africa would develop anyway.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Africa is also relatively undeveloped despite having the best farming conditions anywhere.

    Yes indeed, here is some of that prime African farmland you speak of. Almost all of north African is like that. And about half of southern Africa is like this.

    Europe has some of the richest soil in the world. Africa, not so much.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    I don't buy the premis that the land determines how the people there live.

    It doesn't necessarily, but the earliest agricultural societies always sprang up around large rivers for obvious reasons.

    Africa is also relatively undeveloped despite having the best farming conditions anywhere.

    And the Nile region was farmed quite early by the Egyptians, despite most of the rest of the area being desert completely unsuitable for farming

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    But the ancient Egyptians, at least the nobility, were white.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    The ancient Egyptians were light-brown skinned north Africans, not Caucasians. Just as their descendants are now.

    It was much later when the Greek general Ptolemy conquored Egypt from the ruling Persians and started the Ptolemaic Kingdom that Egypt got relatively pale ruling class, from the Greeks. That was nearly three thousand years after the first Egyptian civilizations, longer than Christianity has existed. But even they were hardly "white" -- many Greeks are typically olive skinned, like most Mediterranean peoples.

    Brown skinned Egyptians were building pyramids while white skinned Europeans were still hunter-gatherers.

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Did I say that north Africans were sub-Saharan Africans from the south? I don't think so.

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I didn't say you said that, did I? ANCIENT Egyptian nobility had blue eyes and blonde or red hair. They were nothing like arabs or what we think of as being "middle eastern" ethnicities.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    But the ancient Egyptians, at least the nobility, were white.

    They weren't black no, but they certainly weren't white europeans, they seem to have had Levant middle eastern genetics

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Nope. They were blue eyed and blonde or red haired. WHITE. Nature is just narrative pseudo anthropology.

    Here are facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3y4FydRNU

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Nope. They were blue eyed and blonde or red haired. WHITE.

    Yes to the blue-eyes and blond hair, but even your sources say these are Levantine Middle Easterners, they may have the mutations for blond hair and blue eyes, but these people are genetically distinct from white Europeans with the genetic distance closest to brown Middle Easterners, not white Europeans. I guess this depends on how we are defining 'whiteness', how are you defining this quality? As possessing light skin/hair/eye mutations, European ancestry, traceability to the Steppe herders, or some other classification methodology? The whole idea of whiteness seems slightly ambiguous when people are using many definitions for what this means, I usually assume people are referring to genetic 'Europeaness', hence my assertion of non-whiteness, but I'm willing to accept a different definition

    Nature is just narrative pseudo anthropology.

    Your video of facts cited this paper as well to cite the Egyptians having Levantine DNA, in addition to one showing Levantine Israelis had blond hair/blue eye mutations. Its sort of central to the argument you are making, idk how you can dismiss this paper as pseudo-anything when your argument depends on this paper as well.

    This "whitifying" of Levantine Israelis would also make Jews 'white', are you comfortable with this? I'd find it surprising if you were, given your fondness for whites and dislike of Jews

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    The 12 (or 13) tribes of Israel include the Aryan nordic genes, as well as the black africans. That doesn't make them "jews" who co-opted the word "Israel" in order to appropriate all these lineages. There is a lot of confusion about these terms, making definitions very muddled.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Though I do believe the mongols also ruled China at some point.

    You don't say.

    [–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Wow that's that famous guy from bill and Ted's excellent adventure.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    But given that the mongols were raiders they likely would not be good workers. Today they would be like the leaches who demand socialized everything so they can refuse to work while living off the labor of others.

    Interesting, would you make the same conclusion about Scandinavians descended from Viking raiders? They do kind of like socialized stuff too actually...

    [–]Canbot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    For a people who are very anti social they do like their social programs.

    They don't really have a reputation for being lazy, but that can be because there are so few of them that they don't really have any kind of reputation.

    There could also be other explanations. For one "viking" only means "pirate" and is not a people the way that mongols are. All peoples have some members who become criminals, but that is not a normal behaviour. These were just the criminals from several countries who just happen to all use boats to get around, meanwhile the majority of the people from that region were farmers or fishermen.

    It could be that the viking reputation is amplified by the fact that they raided monestaries which made them an enemy of the church which had the most powerful microphone of the day. But they were actually a very small portion of the population.

    Or it could be that the decendents of vikings are lazy but are also inteligent enough that they get away with it by becoming administrators.

    [–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    No, every society improves with increased scandinavian genetics

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    There is no "living off the labor of others" in a fiat currency system.

    [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Sorry my guy, but that is absurd. Nothing is created when money is printed. Not your food, or your shelter or your healthcare. All those things require the labor of others to exist. When you produce nothing but take those things from others you are living off the labor of others like any other parasite.

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    This is partly true. However, the other side of that equation is that the governments figuratively wipe their asses with "your" money. A hundred billion here, another there, nobody's counting! Need more? Print more! Of course it dilutes the value of all other units of currency. BUT THEY ARE DOING IT ANYWAY and at a MUCH MUCH MUCH greater scale than people "living off the labor of others".

    EDIT: holy shit in the USA social security is 65% of the US budget? WTF? Still, the pentagon "losing" trillion after trillion ain't exactly drops in the bucket... In Canada we are taxed to death for our social programs and we rightfully take them as something we've paid for.

    Basically modern economics are utterly falsified because taxes shouldn't exist; they exist only to keep Joe Average down, since the most universal tax is simple money printing. All the accounting of taxes is just more makework and hammering the working class. Money should be ACTUAL money (gold, silver, copper) and not fiat currency. Then things would make sense and be very, very different.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    In Canada we are taxed to death for our social programs and we rightfully take them as something we've paid for.

    Except not everyone pays taxes. And those who do not still take. They are leaches.

    Many people choose not to work. They think you are stupid for working. They still take all the things you worked for, while thinking you are pathetic.

    Meanwhile the government has no incentive to get a good value for the money that was taken from you. You get half the value and then split that with the leaches.

    However, the other side of that equation is that the governments figuratively wipe their asses with "your" money.

    That is not "the other side" of anything. It's the same government robbing you a different way. Two wrongs don't make it right.

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Except not everyone pays taxes. And those who do not still take. They are leaches.

    Mostly immigrants. Most Canadians I know of make it a point of honor to 'contribute' and be useful members of society, just like in the Scandinavian nations. You can't extrapolate the US entitlement mentality to other nations, it is fairly unique to that, and 3rd world countries.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Setting the Record Straight: White Europeans Were Captured and Traded as Slaves for Centuries

    Indeed they were. Only the ignorant or deceitful suggests that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was the only case of slavery in the world, although it may have been among the biggest and most inhumane. Compare the 1 million western Europeans sold into slavery to the 12 million in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plus many millions more who died during the long voyage and brutal "seasoning camps".

    And that doesn't count the additional 15-20 million slaves stolen from Africa to the Arab world across the trans-Sahara and trans-Indian Ocean slave trades.

    Of all the forms of Man's inhumanity to Man, slavery is one of the most common in history. While it is true that almost all peoples have, at one time or another, been the victim of slavery, it has been especially a blight on Africans.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    While it is true that almost all peoples have, at one time or another, been the victim of slavery, it has been especially a blight on Africans.

    It's also true that literally every people has done enslaving, this seems to be more a measure of who was powerful than a measure of a people's morality, with a few exceptions, at least up until recent times. I really only recall Alexander the Great freeing any slaves, though there are probably other examples of this

    [–]JewsAreOfColor 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Good. Slavery is good for the white man. It builds his moral character. It gives him a work ethic. It sends the message that people of color will not be bullied and intimidated by the Aryan menace. If we don’t enslave them, they will kill us, rape our women and children, and take our land and its natural resources.

    Every excuse you used to justify the Black man can and will be used to justify enslaving you. I’m not interested in hearing your excuses. I am not interested in hearing you use slave ownership by people of color to manufacture consent for your owning people of color.