Blacks invaded and enslaved Europeans long before Europeans enslaved Africans

Barbary pirates

Black Moslems from Africa made slaves of white Europeans for centuries before Europeans did it to Africans.  The Moors enslaved Spain until they were violently ejected.  They continued preying on shipping in the Mediterranean until President Jefferson destroyed them in the wars with the Barbary Pirates.

White guilt over slavery in the United States is just pathetically wrong.  In the first place, no one alive in America today has owned a slave or been a slave.  Oppression and bigotry are not slavery, and while you can take some action to alleviate the former, the latter is inherent to people who want to believe that large groups are carbon copies of hated individuals.  This is an immature leftist characteristic that infects all human beings.  We must learn not to be bigoted, and the Left’s lies that this is the inherent characteristic of the Right is just projecting their bullsh*t onto others.

Zale Thompson, the Jihadi hatchet man who attacked two NYC policemen, graduated from a teaching academy and wrote on his Facebook page before going on Jihad, that he believed white people should pay for their crime of slavery.  He said,

“It’s okay for white people to draw pictures of a white Jesus and then colonize Africa and enslave the Negro in America, wipe out the Native American, and invade the Middle East.  They call black people racist for rejecting the oppression they suffered from whites?  Listen, when black people have colonized the entire continent of Europe, enslaved its people and sold them into bondage to foreign lands, then you can call ‘em racist.”

NEWSFLASH to all the ignorant leftists out there – black Africans DID invade Europe and enslave white people!

They were Moslems and they were called the Moors who conquered Spain from the 8th to the 15th centuries.  Moslems also conquered Sicily and some other Mediterranean islands.  They invaded France and Italy and everywhere they went they subjugated the populace to make them slaves to their rulers.  Some were taken and sent back to the homeland in Africa to live in slavery there.

It doesn’t matter that they didn’t conquer all of Europe, unless you are just one of those kinds of people who wants evil to be inflicted on everyone else.  The Vikings invading from the north took people as slaves.  Every country in the world in those times took people from other tribes, nations, or continents as slaves.  Moslems did it to Christians from Mohammad right up until President Jefferson crushed the Barbary Pirates.

Slavery exists today in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.  Pretty young girls who go missing are not always runaways.  If you don’t know about this then you need to take your head out of your hole and look around.

Those who believe white people owe something to colored people are suffering from the sins of envy and greed.  No one owes you anything.  If you want your life to be better, then try getting a job and working to make it better rather than blaming others for your shortcomings.

Jihadi ax attacker wanted white people to ‘pay for slavery’

Liberals feel sorry for the lone wolf terrorists they’ve created

The Reader’s Digest version of Mohammad and Islam

Immigrants want to carve out their own state in America

Giving Islam credit for science is like giving credit to the Inquisition

Liberals Backwards Think

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Racism. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Blacks invaded and enslaved Europeans long before Europeans enslaved Africans

  1. Deahjanique Carson says:

    Hey number one , this article is racist as hell. Number two take your head out the gutter . “Africans” enslaved their own people correct , Then the “White”people decides to come make an agreement with us. “We give you 20 oz of corn for 5 familes” we say yes . This is were us as people are fooled. The white people come in and INVADE our land steal our land and leave our people famished , fooled , and FUCKED. Bring us over too a land were we have no rights throw us a Religion , and a bag to pick cotton. No one asked for this I feel my ancestors screaming from the grave everyday

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Number one – when you label facts and history as “racist” you are promoting stupidity, hate, and ignorance.

      Number two – I’m surprised you have some grasp of slavery after that opening, but at least you’re not completely ignorant so there is hope for you.

      Slavery has and does exist at all levels of all societies and cultures. It is principly either enslavement of conquered enemies or criminals. It is a mistake to label colonization and organization of indigenous peoples as slavery. Every third world country that has been colonized or engaged in trade with advanced civilizations has benefited.

      Lastly, the reason so many Africans are starving today is not because of white man, but because of Islam.

      As for crying over your ancestors I feel sorry for you. I know I have ancestors some of whom were slaves, some were criminals, and some were conquerors and I feel neither sorry or guilty for them because I am not them. They’re dead and I don’t give a crap about how they lived their lives. How I live my life is all that matters. I may suffer in life because of the sins of my fathers, but God will not Judge me based on the sins of my ancestors.

      Like

      • The African. says:

        “the reason so many Africans are starving today is not because of white man, but because of Islam.”

        Tell me how it’s Islam fault that Europeans came to Africa and invaded africa? You white people came, robbed and raped our home then starting pointing fingers at a religion.
        Africa is like this because of white people and that’s it. Accept that your ancestors committed a sin against humanity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • stephon says:

        So what the fuck did African Moors have to do with the Indigenous American Negroes that were enslaved here on their own fucking land. Now you research that shit. Your dumb asses think the because we share skin tone , melanin that we are the same people. We are NOT. Africans don’t claim us. If they did they would advocate for us. Who came looking for us if we were stolen, where is the outcry when the police kill one of us. Where is the love for their supposed Haitian brothers and sisters in this current time of need. They are foreigners just like everyone else, Native Americans included. There is a reason they cannot call themselves indigenous, because admittedly they crossed over from Asia, that makes them native and have no more claim to the America then any other invading virus. Tonto, the crying Indian and Johnny Depp were not the people Columbus ran into, De Soto, Cortez or Verrazzano. Now research that? 10 million Africans shoved into the bottom of a ship for 4 months over frigid rough Atlantic waters, shitting and pissing on themselves, laying in sickness, vomit, menstrual cycles. Where did they keep the water for these people, who cleaned up after them, how do you eat slacked like firewood. And last but not least where are the fucking ships. Not a plank, stern, sail, anything. Just some shackle or chain off the coast of East Africa. Not even West Africa where we were supposed to have come from. GTFOH.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        Irrational anger aside your point can be taken up in the fact that none of it has anything to do with anything. No one alive in America today has ever owned or advocated for slavery, and no one alive in America today has ever been a slave or subjected to abuse as a slave. So quit complaining about what happened to someone else in the past and be responsible for yourself today. If anyone of Africa descent believes they are in America unfairly they have no right to claim they are owed any recompense because hundreds of thousands of white people died fighting so they could be free. If any want to be compensated for their ancestors being sold off into slavery by their chieftains two hundred years ago then they can have it in the form of a one way ticket back to Africa!

        Like

      • Vladimir Momperousse says:

        Your a disgusting cave beast. You owe us everything. We black took you out of those caves in europe and taught you cave beast how to take a bath. We all know how you betrayed us. Your a savage and we should have slaughted your kind the moment you left those caves in Europe !

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        You’re an example of the sickness in the leftist mind. How deluded you are to think that somehow Africans made Europeans civilized. How delusional you are to think that civilization came from Africa and wasn’t introduced to it by Europeans. And how vile is your opinion of your fellow man that you think anyone owes you anything when you owe everything to everyone else or you’d be in Africa still chucking spears at rabbits praying your warlord didn’t decide to slice you up. Grow up.

        Like

      • Colonization was nothing more than institutionalized slavery. Why do I say this? It allowed the colonists access to “free” factors of production i.e. land and labour, at the very real expense of the natives. Violence and deception was used to achieve this. Much was hidden from the populations in the home countries, many of whom would have recognized it for what it was; blatant exploitation. It was often relabeled as indentured labour, to give it a veneer of legitimacy. Any benefits accrued could have been achieved just as easily by mutually beneficial trade without the horrors of the colonial project.

        Your assertion about blacks enslaving whites in Europe is conveniently skewed to fit your bias. The Moors enslaved everybody, they were equal opportunity slavers. The European slaves were NOT sent to Africa but to the Arab world. That was where the demand was. Their conquest of Europe was driven by Islam and their slave trade should also be seen in the context of war booty. It was sanctioned by the religious fundamentalism driving the Islamic expansion in the same way that colonization was justified by the notion of a civilizing mission and a “White man’s burden”.

        You should “give a crap” about those who came before you because they set you up either way; for failure or success. A lot of old money can be traced to obscene profits made from slaving or from slave labour. The influence and power delivered by that wealth cannot disappear simply because the ancestors are long dead and buried. It endures. As you say, God will not judge you by the sins of your ancestors. Neither should you judge Africans now by the sins of the Moors, who are similarly, long gone from this world. That would very much be your own sin, and God will certainly judge you for that.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        Amazingly you understand and assert exactly what I am trying to exemplify by bringing up this subject. Slavery was committed by virtually EVERYONE throughout history. It is still being exercised today in the Third World countries and the Middle East, but the leftists deny this. It is exercised in civilized countries to criminals. It is partially exerted through unions. But my largest point is that the descendants of slavers are not guilty of slavery or responsible for the sins of their fathers. Who in this country is holding the children of Mafia crime lords who profited from stealing, raping, and murdering for the wealth they are now using? If they are building a business and people are profiting from the work then great! But if they are using their wealth to corrupt the government through graft and cronyism to profit themselves then they are no different than their father. My point here being that each person is held responsible for their own actions. Whereas this entire narrative of white privilege and guilt is not about making restitution, but about deadbeats, criminals, and thieves attempting to use false guilt to extort good people. I judge no one by the sins of their parents or ancestors and ask nothing of anyone. I only point out the absurdity and the unrighteousness of those who do just that.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Karey says:

      I agree with you Deahjanique. I told my friends white people are sociopaths. I am right. Dustyk103 you are mad. You see their psychi. Crazy as hell. white privilege at its finest

      Like

    • Tigger says:

      No one took shit from you. Every different people tried to conquer and and take slaves. That’s the point. And people talking shit on only white people while people of every color still commit atrocities , but only whites get the blame. That’s the point. You can hate me, doesn’t mean you got shit on me

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Adrainia says:

    Anunnaki is the creator of the white race so you can understand why they are so ungrateful we civilized these cave dwelling beast taught them how to wash their flea ass this is what we get for ever trying to help these creatures from hell.

    Like

    • Caveman Dan says:

      @Adrainia

      Yeah, but what about the slavery?

      -A very proud Cave Dweller

      Liked by 1 person

      • Shatter Brained says:

        “In 711, troops mostly formed by Moors from North Africa led the Umayyad conquest of Hispania.”

        That’s 711 AD, if you were wondering. Romans built baths long before that (Some as early as 264 BC) and generally brought their culture and technology where they conquered. The Cantabaran Wars ended in 19 BC. They also brought their Thermae (Roman Baths) to Briton when they conquered the southern lands in 50BC. The reason why you think the white Europeans as beasts is probably the portrayal of the Visigoths (who looked nothing like ‘Cavemen’. They had metalworking and art.), (Indo?)Germanic tribes of the southern Three Gauls, occupied the land before the Moorish invasion through political marriages and the Romans succeeding the territory to them.

        So no, the Moors didn’t “taught them how to wash their flea ass”. They had access to the technology and were in contact with a culture that utilized it centuries before the Moors were “trying to help these creatures from hell.”

        Ugh, and stop attributing pagan culture to ‘hell’, ‘demons’ and ‘devils’. Their gods had names and they had their own fairytales too.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The Truth says:

      HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah let me guess Jesus is fake but Anunnaki is REAL! GTFOH. Oh yeah did you know the actual characteristics of Caucasians isn’t based on skin color? Oh shit that’s right it included light, medium, and dark skinned people…….Oh shit here comes the knowledge it had to do with physical characteristics I would use bigger words but that is taking away from your chance to go and research it….Yeah some of those claiming to look down on Us Caucasians just might actually be descendants of these swine…….HAHAHA

      Like

    • BT says:

      Translation…Black Africans raped and murdered Neanderthals out of existence, and are just now lamenting their own progeny.

      Like

      • Chemae James says:

        Zondervan’s Compact Bible Dictionary: Ham – The youngest son of Noah, born probably about 96 years before the Flood; and one of eight persons to live through the Flood. He became the progenitor of the dark races; not the NEGROES, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites.

        The so called Black people in America, you Caucasians love to call Africans Americans, aren’t Africans at all.

        Like

  3. I AM UNIVERSAL says:

    I agree with ALMOST everything everyone has said with the exception of “Those who believe white people owe something to colored people are suffering from the sins of envy and greed. No one owes you anything. If you want your life to be better, then try getting a job and working to make it better rather than blaming others for your shortcomings.” But at the end of the day the author is correct. This new generation cannot deflect and project old behaviors from generations before us. That would mean negate the concepts of Change, mental evolution and personal truths. I’m a melting pot of several ethnic backgrounds although I appear “african american”, but at the end of the day, none of it matters when you have Trump and Clinton running a cornball race, poor people of every class and race in America and a clear and obvious need for Love as individuals and collective communities across the World. LOVE!!! LOVE YOUR SELF, AND LOVE WHAT GOD HAS DONE ON THIS BEAUTIFUL EARTH FROM THE SMALLEST TO THE GREATEST DESPITE MANS DESTRUCTION AND LACK OF APPRECIATION OF IT. IGNORANCE, ANIMALISTIC AND PRIMAL BEHVIORS

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I AM UNIVERSAL says:

    oh, and its nice to know that someone besides (us) is learning our history…..

    Liked by 1 person

  5. J.G. says:

    I disagree with the part about reparations towards the end. Millions of African American SLAVES WORKED WITHOUT PAY. African Americans SHOULD get reparations- this has nothing to do with greed. It’s a matter of principle. Native Americans, Arabs and Jews get reparations. Reparations are FREE MONEY and I don’t see any difference between getting them and GRANTS. Grants are free and you don’t have to pay those back.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      What makes anyone entitled to get something for nothing? Slaves didn’t receive a salary, but they received housing, food, and medical care for which their masters paid. Just because they didn’t have the freedom to leave employment doesn’t make them entitled to anything, and it certainly doesn’t make their descendants who now can enjoy all the freedoms of this great country entitled to living for free. But Democrats are giving them housing and food and luxury goods for them to be their voter slaves.

      As for grants, they are not free nor are they entitlements. They are earned. Students receive grants for academic achievement from hard work.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joanne X says:

        Your racist rant is basely…it’s ok for hundreds of Europeans and Jews to get grants and land subsidizes from the US government to set up their families estate’s but Africans who built this country..their descendants get nothing…you better be lucky all the US government has to dish out is a couple of welfare dollars to these descendants of slaves and not the billions of dollars they owe Africa for war crimes against humanity and their American born babies.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        The descendants of Africans in America who are getting nothing are those who believe that Democrats will give them wealth for sitting on their behinds and just getting out to vote every four years. Blacks in America today have every opportunity for education and rising in the business world. Just because most choose to join gangs, do drugs, gang bang hos, and wage war on whitey is not the fault of America. To say they get nothing is an outright lie when there are men like Dr. Ben Carson, Gen. Colin Powell, and CEO Herman Cain who have risen to the top of professions in America.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Chemae James says:

        Confessions of a White Supremacist
        Joanna CruickshankABC Religion and Ethics29 Jun 2017

        One of the many limitations of modern white culture is our lack of frameworks within which to take responsibility for our own complicity in structural injustice.CREDIT: STOCKBYTE / GETTY IMAGES
        SEE ALSO
        • Related Story: Australia Day and the Enduring Power of White SupremacyJOANNA CRUICKSHANK 20 JAN 2017
        • Related Story: Citizenship, Exclusion and the Denial of Indigenous Sovereign RightsAILEEN MORETON-ROBINSON 30 MAY 2017
        • Related Story: Scant Recognition: Have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples any Reason to Hope?MEGAN DAVIS 10 AUG 2016
        • Related Story: For Love of Country? Common Humanity and the Community of NationsRAIMOND GAITA 25 JAN 2017
        • Related Story: Framing Racism: Why SBS’s #FU2Racism Doesn’t Get Race RightYASSIR MORSI 3 MAR 2017
        By: Joanna Cruickshank is Senior Lecturer in History at Deakin University, where she works on the history of race and religion in Australia and the British Empire.
        With all the public figures currently rushing to exonerate themselves from racism, it seems appropriate to nail my colours to the mast. Here it is: I am a white supremacist.
        It might be hard for my fellow white people to tell. After all, I don’t wear a white hood or sport a swastika tattoo. I’m the very model of a modern white liberal, involved in a range of social justice projects.
        My social media stream is full of outrage about Don Dale, Trump and racist Southern Baptists. I grew up in Asia. My child goes to a very multicultural school.
        I have Aboriginal friends! I listen to podcasts hosted by people of colour! I’m a woman!
        And yet – I am a white supremacist. I’m a white supremacist because I live in a world in which, for two centuries, a racial hierarchy that gave power to white people has been one of the primary frameworks for justifying oppression.
        I live in a nation that developed its wealth and established its political structures on the principle that white sovereignty, white law and white culture were superior to those of Aboriginal people. The earliest laws of Australia asserted that the wellbeing of white families mattered more than that of Asian and Pacific Islander peoples.
        The entangled, global nature of these injustices is often missed. In her recent project on the legacies of British slave-ownership, the eminent imperial historian Catherine Hall has followed the trail of the 20 million pounds paid by the British government as compensation when slavery was outlawed in the British Empire in 1833. This compensation was paid not to those black people who had been torn from home and family, enslaved and brutalized, but to their white owners. As Hall’s research shows, many of those compensated went on to invest these proceeds of evil in the Australian colonies, buying land that the Crown had taken from Aboriginal people. Thus, the abolition of slavery, seen with some justification as a moral victory, served to reinforce white power across the globe.
        It is significant that the more formal ideological systems of white supremacy – “scientific” racism, social Darwinism and eugenics – were developed primarily in the wake of these crimes, rather than motivating them. European culture, like many cultures, had long-held notions of superiority. Yet it was not these notions that primarily drove the slave trade and imperialism; instead, old ideas were increasingly developed, formalized and couched in the powerful languages of science and theology in order to create justifications for rapacious greed and oppression.
        Countless laws, policies and white cultural norms – whether “progressive” or “conservative” – have perpetuated these assumptions since then. In Australia, immigration law and policy explicitly sought to exclude people on the basis of the color of their skin. Aboriginal people were actively marginalized from society and from political power. Innovative Australian social policies, like maternity allowances, excluded Aboriginal and Asian mothers. Unions fought against the employment of anyone who wasn’t white. For generations, Australian schools taught white children that their culture was superior to all others and that Aboriginal people were “primitive” and had no connection to the land.
        The results of this are evident, not only in the broad structures of our society, but in the most minor details of my life. I sing a national anthem that proclaims Australians to be “young and free,” directly excluding the ancient nations of this land and their people – people who, for most of the century this anthem has been sung, have been anything but free. I work in institutions and walk on streets named after men who authored the White Australia policy. I watch television and movies where white people portray almost all of the heroes, while people of color play the feisty friend, the wise-cracking sidekick, the super-strong villain or the treacherous terrorist. If I watched sport more often, I would see players of different races, but almost all white managers and coaches.
        All of this means that deeply embedded in my mind are assumptions about the relationship between skin color and the fundamental role and characteristics of a person. Political and intellectual power is associated with whiteness in my mind, and so that connection seems natural to me. In my workplace, if a panel or committee or reading list consisted solely of white people I would be slow to notice, though I would notice immediately, and protest, if a panel or committee or reading list in my workplace was dominated by men. If you were to talk about a “strategic person,” an “intellectual” or a “powerful person” – I would automatically imagine a white person.
        People of color, are a different story. Because I am a nice middle class white woman, undoubtedly some part of me believes they are there for me to help. Or perhaps, they are there to show me how to understand suffering, how to have faith, how to dance, how to feel. Or perhaps, to assist me in tackling racism – to explain it to me, again and again, and to give me the solutions to combat it.
        This is just the tip of the iceberg, but such thinking, which may seem harmless or even complimentary, continues to position people of color as existing primarily for and in relation to me. No doubt, people of color around me could point to many more examples of the way my words and actions reflect and perpetuate white supremacy. I am working to change this, but I would never suggest that I have somehow overcome it.
        I do not say any of this either to indulge in self-flagellation or to suggest that such beliefs and behavior are somehow less abhorrent because they are so widespread. However, the irony is that twenty years of anti-racist education and policies seem to have stigmatized racism without substantially addressing its causes and cure. For white people, being accused of racism seems a far more devastating matter than the suffering experienced by those whom racism actually impacts. Thus, the first reaction of a public figure who has obviously displayed their embeddedness within white supremacist patterns of thought and behavior is defensiveness. “This is not who I am,” Red Symons assured his listeners after deploying a range of racist tropes. I disagree. This is who you are. And this is who I am.
        Such defensiveness suggests to me that one of the many limitations of modern white culture is our lack of frameworks within which to take responsibility for our own complicity in structural injustice. Our identity and our social advantages are deeply rooted in notions of our own moral superiority. The term “white fragility” accurately describes our tendency to crumble when our harmful behavior is called out, so that our own feelings rather than the experience of the oppressed remains our focus.
        The tools of pop psychology and self-help offer little assistance in confronting collective and systemic evil. We will need to look elsewhere for resources and wisdom on how to move forward. We can consider the work of the Japanese philosopher Tanabe Hajime who developed a rigorous approach to national metanoesis or repentance in the wake of the Japanese embrace of militarism in the Second World War. We can look to mechanisms of “transitional justice” such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions developed in the wake of apartheid, which seek to move entire societies forward where deep injustices have occurred. Aboriginal people have shared with us the Yolgnu model of makarrata, or agreement after deep struggle, which finds parallels in European traditions of treaty.
        Judaeo-Christian scriptures and history also contain models of corporate repentance and restitution. These have occasionally been drawn upon in Australian history. In 1838, when the Governor of New South Wales called a national day of fasting and humiliation, in response to widespread drought, preachers across the colony exhorted colonists to turn from their sins. For John Dunmore Lang, a prominent and infamously combative Presbyterian preacher, the first sin of the colony was the treatment of Aboriginal people:
        “Not only have we despoiled them of their land and given them in exchange European vice and European disease in every foul and fatal form, but the blood of hundreds, nay thousands of their number … still stains the hands of many of the inhabitants of the land.”
        Yet Lang’s powerful call for colonists to repent of their participation in and complicity with such sins was blunted by his view that colonization could somehow occur without recourse to such evils.
        In drawing on models like these, therefore, within our own history and that of others, we need to be clear that the patterns of white supremacy will assert themselves – in us individually and in our culture. The temptation is always to priorities white feelings – our own concern to feel good about ourselves – over the actual rights and wellbeing of people of color. Only structural change that overturns the historic assumptions and patterns of white supremacy can truly subvert that.
        Yet for white people, unless we do the ongoing work of educating ourselves, critiquing our assumptions, recognizing our complicity and, in religious language, repenting of our white supremacy, we will continue perpetuating that which we are so desperate to deny.
        Joanna Cruickshank is Senior Lecturer in History at Deakin University, where she works on the history of race and religion in Australia and the British Empire.

        Like

  6. Joanne X says:

    This article has no strong foundation and is a poor attempt to pardon the crimes against humanity done to Africans by way of colonialism, enslavement, and genocide. The writer needs extreme teaching of humanity.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      This is a myopic response that focuses only on a small segment of history while ignoring the rest. It also ignores the vast benefits Africans have enjoyed under colonialism that brought them peace, farming, medicine, and government. Yes, there were some who abused the stone age natives, but for the most part Africans have gained a thousand fold more than they lost.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dave says:

      Your grammar should be a war crime.

      Like

    • Shatter Brained says:

      No strong Foundation? Try history. You know, that boring topic we’re forced to read so we don’t make the same mistakes of our forefathers. Most people have access to many accounts of history today and we are even coming up with some new archeological finds that makes the ‘First Nations” title be another falsity. We weren’t from India nor were we the first peoples of North America, even according to the accounts of the Western Coast tribes just to let you know.

      This article isn’t trying to pardon the horrors inflicted upon any people, but rather point out the facts related to the arguments provided by many who tow this line of oppression. Sure, newer generations still feel the effects of past generation’s trauma, especially if you look at it from a physiological standpoint, but it also has impact in a socio-economic sense. Most humans self-medicate and make poor decisions when traumatized. These actions CAN become habits learned by their offspring, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Currently, ALL people within North America (Thanks free market) have the opportunity to rise from the very bottom to the top, if they choose to work as hard as they have to. Some people have to work harder than others because of the choices of their parents, but if we all could choose what life we are born into, the rich would be driven poor by all the miracle births they would be having. Not to mention that trust-fund babies have gone broke due to poor decisions and fiscal planning.

      If the current descendants of the eastern and western African slaves want to point fingers, they can point it at the ANCESTORS of the current generation of White/Spanish European descendants, but also the African/Arab slave traders who initially took the slaves and sold them to the Europeans.

      People also seem to forget that 300-400 thousand men of the Union lost their lives freeing said slaves against the Confederacy. Also on that topic, not all Confederates were slave owners and some were even apathetic (because it was a cultural norm) or against slavery. General R. E. Lee even tried to establish a contract for the eventual release of the slaves tied to the estate left to him. Some people just didn’t like the political leanings of the Union and you know how the saying goes ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Most descendants of the white Europeans didn’t come from the nobility, aristocracy and religious leaders who all made the initial decision to bring slaves with them to the New World.

      Sure, ‘My people’ may have a bit of a bone to pick with the White European settlers, but I don’t. My wife, a White-European/Slavic descendant has done nothing of the sort to me personally. In fact, I’m certain her ancestors came here after all that mess. Should I cast aside a perfectly well-intentioned and compassionate human being because of what MAY have been her ancestors killed (both on purpose and inadvertently) plenty of mine (Although, other tribes killed a lot of my ancestors too) and made crap deals they couldn’t understand? BECAUSE OF SKIN COLOUR? That’s what’s happening right now on the extremes of both sides of this debate. We have legal segregation again on some campuses!

      Also, the reason why a Treaty even exists in the first place is because there were Native American tribes who allied with the various colonies of Europe. You had some natives fighting alongside the French, British, The Revolutionaries and the Spanish. Hell, some tribes even engaged in a little slavery themselves (Thankfully not mine). Everybody seemed to crap on everybody.

      Sorry, even my ancestors would know (and mine did, evidenced by their want to ‘share the land’) that’s bullshit and THAT (racism, yes, one can be racist towards Caucasians) has no strong foundation. As the next generations just out of the bullshit of the Mid 1900’s, we have an opportunity to show the rest of the meatbags on this planet how to love each other for our differences and take pride in our respective cultures, despite history telling us otherwise.

      If you made it this far, thank you for your time. I am not Right-wing, or am I left. I’m just a carbon-based life-form stuck on this rock with a bunch of lunatics.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Terese says:

    WOWZA!!! holy crap.. you are so so ignorant.. I am white as snow,, Italian…and you have serious indoctrination I am going to assume you are so right wing southern faux Christian… I am going to address your bullshit about going to get a job dumbass… First you think only blacks are on welfare??? I can show you the whole area (unfortunately live in presently) that most all are white and on drugs and babies having babies.. yeah my dumbass white neighbor brood a kid and had a baby while doing heroin ,loser if there ever was one.. and had not you done your US HISTORY you would understand how much RELIGION has done more harm than good.. Your good book inspired a book on how slavery is justified and there were plenty of BLACK Slaves and don’t start your bullshit about they sold their own people. it was the Islamic moors who sold the Africans so do your homework.. and WELFARE , lets talk about that… because many whites use that system since they too don’t work.. yeah look at the stats… is on the scale of things very little spending goes to it overall.. DUH the military industrial complex (which hey conservatives love a good war against the wrong group of religious people) use trillions a dollars a day to kill innocent people. But let me tell you something you boob…when the dollar collapses under Trump (not that its his fault its years/decades of boobs like you who voted for a corrupt system) and WW3 happens you will be begging for bread crumbs… So good luck with that. Judging by your inane post you appear to be of a lower income status (educated , upper middle class people) would never spew out such stupidity….

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Thank you for your response. I always appreciate the opportunity to correct the misconceptions of fools who believe calling me names because they make false assumptions and display their own ignorance makes them somehow moral and socially superior beings.

      I never said only blacks are on welfare, but are represented disproportionately to their population as they are in crime.
      The Bible does not condone or justify slavery, and the Moors were blacks who took whites as slaves, not sold other Africans as slaves, which you would know if you had bothered to read the article or any history.
      The remainder of your rant about Trump and WWIII is as silly as such claims were about Reagan, while ignoring the very real actions of Obama to light the fuse in the Middle East and launch the renewed Jihad as he weakened America thus setting the stage for the next world war.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lololol says:

        However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

        If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

        When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

        When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT

        Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

        LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG! DO YOU EVEN READ THE BIBLE BRO?

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        You copy and paste all of this about ancient slaves and ask me if I read the Bible? Did you bother to read this little article? If you had then you might realize of what I speak. And if you had read anything else I wrote on the subject then you might understand that America is the exception in all of history to abolish slavery at the cost of American’s own blood. It is very true that slavery is still being practiced today; in the Middle East by Moslems, in Africa by African warlords, in Asia by oriental socialists, in Europe by the globalist elites, in South America by drug lords, and in America by Democrats. Nothing like importing cheap labor as illegal alien welfare voter slaves to replace working citizens to drive wages down and dilute their rights.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Chemae James says:

        TRUMP WHITE HOUSE GOES AFTER WHITE PEOPLE ON WELFARE
        BY HARRIET SINCLAIR ON 11/20/17 AT 8:41 PM
        The Trump administration could hit the president’s white working-class base where it hurts—threatening to make welfare cuts.

        The majority of people who receive welfare checks are white working-class Americans, many of whom voted for Trump based on the pledge they would be better off financially under him.

        But the president said last month he would be looking “very strongly” at welfare reform after suggesting that some people were unfairly abusing the system.

        “That’s becoming a very big subject and people are taking advantage of the system and other people aren’t receiving what they need to live, and we think it’s very unfair to them,” Trump said in October.

        White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Monday that details of the administration’s plans to overhaul welfare would be released at the beginning of next year, stressing that Trump was particularly interested in the topic.

        “This is something that the president has a great deal of interest in and I think you can count on probably the first part of next year seeing more specifics and details come out on that,” she said on Monday, Reuters reported.

        Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

        Earlier this year, Washington D.C.-based think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a study on welfare that shows tax credits and government assistance benefitted 6.2 million white Americans without a degree in 2014, compared with 2.8 million black Americans and 2.4 million Hispanic Americans without a degree.

        The president has not gone into further details on who he thinks is exploiting welfare exactly, but any cuts to welfare benefits will hit the more than 6 million working-class white people the think tank says relies on such checks.

        Exit polls show that working-class people voted for Trump in droves, and it is unlikely the president will continue to find himself popular among any demographic whose budget he slashes.

        TRUMP THINKS ONLY BLACK PEOPLE ARE ON WELFARE, BUT, REALLY, WHITE AMERICANS RECEIVE MOST BENEFITS
        BY RYAN SIT ON 1/12/18 AT 3:53 PM

        President Donald Trump was apparently unaware that not all—in fact, the vast majority—of welfare beneficiaries are not black as recently as last March, according to a new report.
        In the spring of 2017, the newly elected president met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus. During that meeting, one of the members mentioned to Trump that welfare reform would be detrimental to her constituents— adding, “Not all of whom are black,” according to NBC News.
        The president was incredulous. “Really? Then what are they?”
        Statistically speaking, they were probably white.
        In fact, whites are the biggest beneficiaries when it comes to government safety-net programs like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly referred to as welfare.
        White people without a college degree ages 18 to 64 are the largest class of adults lifted out of poverty by such programs, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The think tank’s 2017 report stated that 6.2 million working-age whites were lifted above the poverty line in 2014 compared to 2.8 million blacks and 2.4 million Hispanics.
        Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now
        When it comes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP—the initiative formerly known as food stamps—the numbers look similar.
        Related: Trump says Haiti is not a “shithole,” just “very poor and troubled”
        Just over 40 percent of SNAP recipients are white. Another 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American, according to a 2015 Department of Agriculture report.
        Despite Trump’s newly gleaned information, welfare reform remains one of his top goals for 2018. His administration and Congressional Republicans are looking to overhaul federal safety-net programs like SNAP, Medicaid and housing benefits.
        News of Trump’s welfare comment arrived as he’s dealing with the backlash of reportedly calling African countries a “shithole” during a bipartisan meeting on immigration Thursday. Trump has denied using such language.

        Like

    • Dave says:

      Definitely black. First, a white guy wouldn’t refer to his neighbor as, “my dumbass white neighbor”. Second, “You big dummy!”. Third, you say, “But let me tell you something you boob…when the dollar collapses under Trump (not that its his fault its years/decades of boobs like you who voted for a corrupt system) and WW3 happens you will be begging for bread crumbs… So good luck with that. Judging by your inane post you appear to be of a lower income status (educated, upper middle class people) would never spew out such stupidity….”. Are you seriously calling people stupid after this foolery that you call an argument.

      Like

      • Shatter Brained says:

        Dave, you seem so sure that “Definitely black. First, a white guy wouldn’t refer to his neighbor as, “my dumbass white neighbor”.”Second, “You big dummy!”. Third, you say, “But let me tell you something you boob…”

        Well, there are Caucasians with low IQ. There are always exceptions to the rule (your statement not even being a rule).

        “Judging by your inane post you appear to be of a lower income status (educated, upper middle class people) would never spew out such stupidity….”.

        I grew up in a low income family, I just enjoyed reading. Again, you seems so sure of your perspective of the human experience, but I doubt what you say is absolute truth.

        Also, ‘…’ is not a substitute for a comma! I only know because I too used it until I realized it was useless unless writing script for a comic.

        Now I am not defending this lunatic OP, but damn, you are not helping in the argument.

        Like

  8. lololol says:

    oh no african muslims enslaved whites! TIME TO PLAY THE VICTIM ROLE LIKE BLACKS TO GAIN SYMPATHY! nobody can play the victim role of slavery, since slavery happened AMONG EVERY RACE! something you failed to mention. yeah, yeah, slavery was bad. we get it. but why no mention europeans enslaving each other long before african muslims enslaved whites? greeks, romans, fanks, visogoths, scandanavians, baltics, germanics, all had enslaved whites long before afican muslims did.

    Like

  9. lololol says:

    I NOTICED THAT YOUR TIME ZONE ISNT EVEN ALIGNED ANYWHERE IN AMERICA! YOUR TIMEZONE IS 7 HOURS AHEAD OF MINE! YOU DONT EVEN LIVE IN AMERICA! LOLOLOL WHO ARE YOU FOOLING?

    Like

  10. lololol says:

    I always appreciate the opportunity to correct the misconceptions of fools who believe calling me names

    but yet you are calling other people names like calling them “fools” yeah. tell me how that isnt hypocrisy.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Calling people ‘a big dooty head’ is name calling when you have no intelligent adult response. Giving a person their earned label for speaking stupidly or acting the fool is not. Your narrow perception is that of a fool.

      Like

  11. suckit says:

    All the racist black people who came to rant and rave.. lmfao. Proud of being pathetic..

    Like

    • Chemae James says:

      Berlin Conference (1884-85)
      In the second half of the nineteenth century, after more than four centuries of contact, the European powers finally laid claim to virtually all of Africa. Parts of the continent had been “explored,” but now representatives of European governments and rulers arrived to create or expand African spheres of influence for their patrons. Competition was intense. Spheres of influence began to crowd each other. It was time for negotiation, and in late 1884 a conference was convened in Berlin to sort things out. This conference laid the groundwork for the now familiar politico-geographical map of Africa.
      In November 1884, the imperial chancellor and architect of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck, convened a conference of 14 states (including the United States) to settle the political partitioning of Africa. Bismarck wanted not only to expand German spheres of influence in Africa but also to play off Germany’s colonial rivals against one another to the Germans’ advantage. Of these fourteen nations, France, Germany, Great Britain, and Portugal were the major players in the conference, controlling most of colonial Africa at the time.
      The Berlin Conference was Africa’s undoing in more ways than one. The colonial powers superimposed their domains on the African Continent. By the time Africa regained its independence after the late 1950s, the realm had acquired a legacy of political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate satisfactorily. The African politico-geographical map is thus a permanent liability that resulted from the three months of ignorant, greedy acquisitiveness during a period when Europe’s search for minerals and markets had become insatiable.
      The French dominated most of West Africa, and the British East and Southern Africa. The Belgians acquired the vast territory that became The Congo. The Germans held four colonies, one in each of the realm’s regions. The Portuguese held a small colony in West Africa and two large ones in Southern Africa.
      After colonial rule was firmly established in Africa, the only change in possessions came after World War I. Germany’s four colonies were placed under the League of Nations, which established a mandate system for other colonizers to administer the territories.
      The Congo Free State, conceived as a “neutral” zone to be run by an international association in the interest of bringing science, civilization, and Christianity to the indigenes, received the Berlin Conference’s blessings. Belgium’s King Leopold II (far left) soon took control, reaping fabulous personal profits through the sale of land and development rights. Scandalously little was reinvested in schools like the one shown here.
      The Congo Free State, conceived as a “neutral” zone to be run by an international association in the interest of bringing science, civilization, and Christianity to the indigenes, received the Berlin Conference’s blessings. Belgium’s King Leopold II (far left) soon took control, reaping fabulous personal profits through the sale of land and development rights. Scandalously little was reinvested in schools.

      Result of Colonization:
      The European colonial powers shared one objective in their African colonies: exploitation. But in the way they governed their dependencies, they reflected their differences. Some colonial powers were themselves democracies (the United Kingdom and France); others were dictatorships (Portugal, Spain). The British established a system of indirect rule over much of their domain, leaving indigenous power structure in place and making local rulers representatives of the British Crown. This was unthinkable in the Portuguese colonies, where harsh, direct control was the rule. The French sought to create culturally assimilated elites what would represent French ideals in the colonies.
      In the Belgian Congo, however, King Leopold II, who had financed the expeditions that staked Belgium’s claim in Berlin, embarked on a campaign of ruthless exploitation. His enforcers mobilized almost the entire Congolese populations to gather rubber, kill elephants for their ivory, and build public works to improve export routes. For failing to meet production quotes, entire communities were massacred. Killing and maiming became routine in a colony in which horror was the only common denominator. After the impact of the slave trade, King Leopold’s reign of terror was Africa’s most severe demographic disaster. By the time it ended, after a growing outcry around the world, as many as 10 million Congolese had been murdered. In 1908 the Belgium government, administrators, and the Roman Catholic Church each pursued their sometimes-competing interest. But no one thought to change the name of the colonial capital: it was Leopoldville until the Belgian Congo achieved independence in 1960.

      Source:
      de Blij, H. J., & Muller, P. O. (2003). Geography: Realms, regions and concepts (11th ed., pp. 298-300). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

      African History Europe History
      The Berlin Conference of 1884–85 (The General Act of the Berlin Conference)
      February 26, 2014 admin 0 Comment

      The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, also known as the Congo Conference (German: Kongokonferenz) or West Africa Conference (Westafrika-Konferenz), regulated European colonisation and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period, and coincided with Germany’s sudden emergence as an imperial power. Called for by Portugal and organized by Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany, its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, while simultaneously eliminating most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.
      Early history of the Berlin Conference
      Prior to the conference, European diplomacy treated African indigenous people in the same manner as the New World natives. By the mid-19th century, Africa was considered disputed territory ripe for exploration, trade, and settlement. With the exception of trading posts along the coasts, the continent was essentially ignored. This changed as a result of King Leopold of Belgium’s desire for glory.
      In 1878, King Léopold II of Belgium, who had previously founded the International African Society in 1876, invited Henry Morton Stanley to join him in researching and “civilizing” the continent. In 1878, the International Congo Society was also formed, with more economic goals, but still closely related to the former society. Léopold secretly bought off the foreign investors in the Congo Society, which was turned to imperialistic goals, with the African Society serving primarily as a philanthropic front.
      From 1878 to 1885, Stanley returned to the Congo, this time not as a reporter, but as an envoy from Léopold with the secret mission to organize what would become known as the Congo Free State. French intelligence had discovered Leopold’s plans, and France was quickly engaging in its own colonial exploration. French naval officer Pierre de Brazza was dispatched to central Africa, traveled into the western Congo basin, and raised the French flag over the newly founded Brazzaville in 1881, in what is currently the Republic of Congo. Finally, Portugal, which already had a long, but essentially abandoned colonial Empire in the area through the mostly defunct proxy state Kongo Empire, also claimed the area due to old treaties with its old proxy, the Kingdom of Spain, and the Roman Catholic Church. It quickly made a treaty with its old ally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on 26 February 1884 to block off the Congo Society’s access to the Atlantic.
      By the early 1880s, due to diplomatic maneuvers, subsequent colonial exploration, and recognition of Africa’s abundance of valuable resources such as gold, timber, land, markets and labour power, European interest in Africa had increased dramatically. Stanley’s charting of the Congo River Basin (1874–77) removed the last bit of terra incognita from European maps of the continent, thereby delineating the rough areas of British, Portuguese, French, and Belgian control. The powers raced to push these rough boundaries to their furthest limits and eliminating any potential local minor powers which might prove troublesome to European competitive diplomacy.

      The conference of Berlin

      France moved to occupy Tunisia, one of the last of the Barbary Pirate states under the pretext of another Islamic terror and piracy incident. French claims by Pierre de Brazza were quickly solidified with French taking control of today’s Republic of the Congo in 1881 and also Guinea in 1884. This, in turn, partly convinced Italy to become part of the Triple Alliance, thereby upsetting Bismarck’s carefully laid plans with Italy and forcing Germany to become involved. In 1882, realizing the geopolitical extent of Portuguese control on the coasts, but seeing penetration by France eastward across Central Africa toward Ethiopia, the Nile, and the Suez Canal, Britain saw its vital trade route through Egypt and its Indian Empire threatened.
      Under the pretext of the collapsed Egyptian financing and a subsequent riot which saw hundreds of Europeans and British subjects murdered or injured, the United Kingdom intervened in nominally Ottoman Egypt, which, in turn, ruled over the Sudan and what would later become British Somaliland.
      Conference
      Owing to the upsetting of Bismarck’s carefully laid balance of power in European politics caused by Leopold’s gamble and subsequent European race for colonies, Germany felt compelled to act and started launching expeditions of its own which frightened both British and French statesmen. Hoping to quickly soothe this brewing conflict, King Leopold II was able to convince France and Germany that common trade in Africa was in the best interests of all three countries. Under support from the British and the initiative of Portugal, Otto von Bismarck, German Chancellor, called on representatives of Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia,Spain, Sweden-Norway (union until 1905), the Ottoman Empire, and the United States to take part in the Berlin Conference to work out policy. However, the United States did not actually participate in the conference both because it had an inability to take part in territorial expeditions as well as a sense of not giving the conference further legitimacy.
      General Act
      The General Act fixed the following points:
       To gain public acceptance a primary point of the conference was the ending of slavery by Black and Islamic powers. Thus, an international prohibition of the slave trade throughout their respected spheres was signed by the European members. It was primarily because of this point that Joseph Conrad sarcastically referred to the conference as “the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs” in his novella Heart of Darkness.
       The Congo Free State was confirmed as private property of the Congo Society thereby ensuring that Leopold’s promises to keep the country open to all European investment was retained. Thus the territory of today’s Democratic Republic of the Congo, some two million square kilometers, was made essentially the property of Léopold II (but later would eventually become a Belgian colony).
       The 14 signatory powers would have free trade throughout the Congo Basin as well as Lake Niassa and east of this in an area south of 5° N.
       The Niger River and Congo River were made free for ship traffic.
       A Principle of Effectivity (see below) was introduced to stop powers setting up colonies in name only.
       Any fresh act of taking possession of any portion of the African coast would have to be notified by the power taking possession, or assuming a protectorate, to the other signatory powers.
       Which regions each European power had an exclusive right to “pursue” the legal ownership of land (legal in the eyes of the other European powers). :44
      The first reference in an international act to the obligations attaching to “spheres of influence” is contained in the Berlin Act.
      Principle of Effective Occupation
      The principle of effective occupation stated that powers could acquire rights over colonial lands only if they actually possessed them: in other words, if they had treaties with local leaders, if they flew their flag there, and if they established an administration in the territory to govern it with a police force to keep order. The colonial power could also make use of the colony economically. This principle became important not only as a basis for the European powers to acquire territorial sovereignty in Africa, but also for determining the limits of their respective overseas possessions, as effective occupation served in some instances as a criterion for settling disputes over the boundaries between colonies. However, as the Berlin Act was limited in its scope to the lands on the African coast, there were numerous instances where European powers claimed rights over lands in the interior without demonstrating the requirement of effective occupation articulated in Article 35 of the Final Act.
      At the Berlin Conference of 1885, the scope of the Principle of Effective Occupation was heavily contested between Germany and France. The Germans, who were new to the continent of Africa, believed that as far as the extension of power in Africa was concerned, no colonial power should have any legal right to a territory, unless he exercised strong and effective political control. Since Germany was a late comer to the continent and was unlikely to gain any possessions, it had an interest in embarrassing the other European powers on the continent and forcing them to give up their possessions if they could not have a strong political presence. On the other side of the debate was Britain who had large territorial possessions on the continent and was interested in keeping these territories while minimizing it’s responsibilities and administrative costs. In the end, the British view prevailed. The disinclination to rule what the Europeans had conquered is visible throughout the protocols of the Berlin Conference, but especially in The Principle of Effective Occupation. All that a European power had to do was establish some kind of base on the coast and then it was free to expand inward. The Europeans did not believe that the rules of occupation demanded European Hegemony on the ground. In fact, the Belgians originally wanted to include that “effective occupation” required provisions that “cause peace to be administered”, however that amendment was struck out of the final document. This principle, along with others that were written at the Conference allowed the Europeans to conquer Africa while doing as little as possible to control it. The Principle of Effective Occupation did not apply so much to the hinterlands of Africa at the time of the conference. This gave rise to “hinterland theory” which basically gave any colonial power with coastal territory the right to claim political influence over an indefinite amount of inland territory. Since Africa was irregularly shaped, this theory caused problems and was later rejected.

      Agenda
       Portugal – Britain: The Portuguese government presented a project, known as the “Pink Map” (also called the “Rose-Colored Map”), in which the colonies of Angola and Mozambique were united by co-option of the intervening territory (land that later became Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi.) All of the countries attending the conference, except for the United Kingdom, endorsed Portugal’s ambitions. A little more than five years later, in 1890, the British government, in breach of the Treaty of Windsor (and of the Treaty of Berlin itself[citation needed]), issued an ultimatum demanding that the Portuguese withdraw from the disputed area.
       France – Britain: A line running from Say in Niger to Baroua, on the north-east coast of Lake Chad determined what part belonged to whom. France would own territory to the north of this line, and the United Kingdom would own territory to the south of it. The Nile Basin would be British, with the French taking the basin of Lake Chad. Furthermore, between the 11th and 15th degrees latitude, the border would pass between Ouaddaï, which would be French, andDarfur in Sudan, to be British. In reality, a no man’s land 200 kilometres wide was put in place between the 21st and 23rd meridians.
       France – Germany: The area to the north of a line formed by the intersection of the 14th meridian and Miltou was designated French, that to the south being German.
       Britain – Germany: The separation came in the form of a line passing through Yola, on the Benoué, Dikoa, going up to the extremity of Lake Chad.
       France – Italy: Italy was to own what lies north of a line from the intersection of the Tropic of Cancer and the 17th meridian to the intersection of the 15th parallel and 21st meridian.
      Consequences
      The conference provided an opportunity to both channel latent European hostilities towards one another outward, provide new areas for helping the European powers expand in the face of rising American, Russian, and Japanese interests, and form constructive dialogue for limiting future hostilities. For Africans, colonialism was introduced across nearly all the continent. When African independence was regained after World War II, it was in the form of fragmented states.
      The Scramble for Africa sped up after the Conference, since even within areas designated as their sphere of influence, the European powers still had to take possession under the Principle of Effectivity. In central Africa in particular, expeditions were dispatched to coerce traditional rulers into signing treaties, using force if necessary, as for example in the case of Msiri, King of Katanga, in 1891. Bedouin and Berber ruled states in the Sahara and Sub-Sahara were overrun by the French in several wars by the beginning of World War I. The British moved up from South Africa and down from Egypt conquering Arabic states such as the Mahdist State and theSultanate of Zanzibar and, (having already defeated the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa, in 1879), moving on to subdue and dismantle the independent Afrikaanerrepublics of Transvaal and Orange Free State.
      Within a few years, Africa was at least nominally divided up south of the Sahara. By 1895, the only independent states were:
       Liberia, founded with the support of the United States for returned slaves;
       Abyssinia (Ethiopia), the only free native state, which fended off Italian invasion from Eritrea in what is known as the First Italo-Abyssinian War of 1889-1896.
       Majeerteen Sultanate, The Sultanate was founded in the early 18th century, it was annexed by Italy in the 20th century.
       Sultanate of Hobyo, the Sultanate was carved out of the former Majeerteen Sultanate and ruled northern Somalia until the 20th century, when it was conquered by Italy.
      The following states lost their independence to the British Empire roughly a decade after (see below for more information):
       Orange Free State, a Boer republic founded by Dutch settlers;
       South African Republic (Transvaal), also a Boer republic;
      By 1902, 90% of all the land that makes up Africa was under European control. The large part of the Sahara was French, while after the quelling of the Mahdi rebellionand the ending of the Fashoda crisis, the Sudan remained firmly under joint British–Egyptian rulership with Egypt being under British occupation before becoming aBritish protectorate in 1914.
      The Boer republics were conquered by the United Kingdom in the Boer war from 1899 to 1902. Morocco was divided between the French and Spanish in 1911, and Libya was conquered by Italy in 1912. The official British annexation of Egypt in 1914 ended the colonial division of Africa. Germany was defeated.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference

      Like

  12. MORALS AND PEACE says:

    Slavery still goes on everywhere not just Africa sex trafficking is all over the world

    Liked by 1 person

  13. MORALS AND PEACE says:

    Oh another thing both Democrats and Republicans don’t care for minorities period the government don’t care for nobody if voting really matter it wouldn’t be no ghettos anywhere in America

    Like

  14. mat says:

    You will argue all day long, No one will understand white slaves under the moors 700 years of white being slaves, yet most dont even no about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. No says:

    This Post is extremely racist! You are justifying slavery and overlooking the amount of wealth whites gain and that was Past down in the western world.

    Like

  16. Earl Robinson jr says:

    I am fastanated by the true history that america in not going to allow black people to know. I want to seek more information about the real true history

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Try reading older history books. The new material is largely tainted by political ideology.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maz says:

        But wouldn’t that mean it’s a possibility that older books could have been compiled lies, to convince you of your own ideologies?

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        “History is written by the victor” is only generally true. There are always two sides to every story and, while both are capable of lying, examination tends to reveal which lies and which is honest. For example, the claims that Islam is peaceful is shattered when reading the Koran and Hadith and studying the history of Islamic wars of conquest. Moslem’s claims that it was the conquered Christians in Spain who were violently opposed to their “peaceful” religion that was the cause of conflict, and not to Islamists imposing the incredibly oppressive laws of Sharia on them, shatters their narrative. Truth in Islamic history is found to be so severely lacking when they talk of their conquests and report they killed ten times as many people in a battle as the other side reports they even had in their armies. The only reason I say look to older books is because in the current political climate in the USA the two factions – Republicans vs. Socialists – the Left is always known to taint history to far greater a degree than the Right as proven by the writings of socialists, Islamists, and the like. It’s best to discover the political views of the authors before you believe everything they say. The argument that the truth is unknowable is a leftist argument that holds no water such as their claim that there is no record of Jesus in history.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. GLENN says:

    This article starts off wrong is blatant b*******. No person alive. The institutions crested by dead white men lives on.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Did you think you were going to present something coherent as an argument, or just have an apoplectic fit to sputter at the keyboard in self-righteous rage?

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Yavor says:

    My friend, the Moors were mostly Berbers, which are not black. Slavery did exist in Africa way before white Christian colonization, and it was indeed practiced by Muslims for longer and on a larger scale. However, blacks did not own slaves. Some of the Moors were black, but most were a mix of Berbers and Arabs, and all were Muslim. Please do educate yourself on the issue.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      I appreciate your additional input into the matter. The necessity for this article is to put an end to the stupid idea that blacks today who have never been slaves are owed anything by whites who have never owned slaves because of something in the past. Slavery has always been and is a part of human existence whether outright or through institutions like socialism or Islam. Every culture has had slaves and had members of it be slaves, so no one is deserving of any “reconciliation” for their heritage. This is America where everyone has opportunity to be the best they can be. But too many are being encouraged to be greedy, envious, slothful, and vindictive. Democrats who encourage this kind of parasitic behavior need to have their pre-conceived false notions shoved back down their lying throats.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yavor says:

        I agree with you, just not with the classification of moors as black.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        The problem with liberals today is that they classify anything other than European as colored and anyone with skin tone that isn’t fair as being black – Arabs for example. By their definition the Moors were very black. 😀

        Liked by 1 person

  19. Yavor says:

    Blacks did not own white slaves, at least not on any significant scale. They did own slaves of their own race, but the premise of the article is completely false and misleading.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Now I know that first sentence is wrong which is why I wrote this article, so your declaration that the premise is false is itself false.

      Like

  20. Vladimir Momperousse says:

    Your a piece of shit. And people see right thru your racist agenda. You seem to forget about Jim Crow, Segergation, War on drugs, Black wall street. Saying blacks own slaves does not let you off the hook you fool. Even today you cave beast white people are trying to hold us down. Not just blacks but everyone. And short comings. Africans have the dominant gene for a reason. I hear the hate in your words we call that Infiority complex!

    Like

  21. Truth hurtz says:

    How u say black people slaved white people when u were in the dark ages after Roman rule..the moors brought whites out the dark, when they built universities for u to relearn…peole don’t build schools for slaves…..Dick Head

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      What revisionist history have you been reading? What universities did the Moors have? Arabs didn’t bring universities out of the desert. They stole the schools the Romans built. But then they injected the Koran into it and eventually they deteriorated into what they are today – indoctrination centers. The Romans brought Europe out of the Dark Ages and then the Turks destroyed them.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Misty Miller Smith says:

    Did the person who wrote this say they were white or is this just being assumed? Anyway, funny how the Jewish, other ethnic groups, religious orders, handicapped, and the insane were exterminated by the millions…over 7 million…irradicated and I don’t hear any of their descendants or people of the like complain…

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Jim braun says:

    1st. If “We all come from Africa” then we have every right to go back to our homeland and do what we like. After all we are all African, right?

    2nd. You expect me to believe that a region of the world with thousands of years head start on every other country couldn’t overwhelm a few boats full of dutchmen? A bunch of average sized guys from a cold, wet part of the world just casually marched through the african dessert, hugely outnumbered by bigger, faster, stronger men with a vast knowledge of the landscape & proceeded to just pick people off and carry them to their boats with no repercussions?

    Thousands of years head start and you still couldn’t outsmart a tiny european country?

    The only people you have to blame for slavery were your own leaders. They were the ones pimping their own people out for money.

    But hey, gotta get on your grind & make them milllis somehow right?

    Liked by 1 person

    • dustyk103 says:

      LOL! Superbly stated! Democrats are not educated. Most all slaves throughout history consisted of two types of people; conquered peoples and criminals. Africans were sold by their chieftains to Europeans because they were the people they wanted to get rid of, not because a few guys could scare off African warriors. Guns vs. spears in those days was not an advantage and anything less than a full army trying to hijack slaves would have been massacred. Uneducated Democrats do not understand this basic truth. Likewise, invading immigrants consist of a very high percentage of criminals fleeing prosecution, not a bunch of refugees fleeing persecution. Why else would they be sitting on the current border fence demanding to be let in while waving the flags of their home countries rather than the American flag? They are not supplicants seeking refuge, but invaders seeking conquest not by force, but by breeding us out. That’s why border security must include eliminating birthright citizenship.

      Like

      • Chemae James says:

        First of all, the so called Black people you Caucasians love to call Africans Americans aren’t Africans at all.
        Zondervan’s Compact Bible Dictionary: Ham – The youngest son of Noah, born probably about 96 years before the Flood; and one of eight persons to live through the Flood. He became the progenitor of the dark races; not the NEGROES, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites.

        Israel 14:1-3, 21
        1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

        2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

        3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

        21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

        Zechariah 11:5, 5 Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not.

        Joel 3:1-12, 1 For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,

        2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

        3 And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.

        4 Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head;

        5 Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my goodly pleasant things:

        6 The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border.

        7 Behold, I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will return your recompence upon your own head:

        8 And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

        9 Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up:

        10 Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

        11 Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD.

        12 Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s