#Islamic slave trade

[secular-jew]

PSA: Islam is NOT a benevolent ideology. Rather, Islam IS a colonial, imperialist, intolerant, subjugating, violent, murdering, and oppressive ideology. But most especially, Islam was the greatest slave taking, slave trading, and slave raping entity ever known to mankind. More than the Roman (and other European) Empires. Slavery has been a "given" from its inception, and has been a large part of its wealth and expansion since Muhammad arrived to Yathrib (now Medina), throughout its 1,414 year history, and even continues to this very day.

The sheer quantity of slaves kidnapped out of Africa, is a big differentiator. While all empires depended on slaves to one degree or another, Islam began kidnapping slaves out of Africa CENTURIES BEFORE the European slave trade began, and lasted much longer. Not for nothing, but, a big part of Islamic slavery of Africans (and Jews and others) is a sexual component, where women were kidnapped to be sexual slaves to the militant men. The women were kidnapped in order to service the sexual whims of Islamic men, and also to breed more Muslims. We've seen this in recent years as thousands of young female Africans have been kidnapped by Boko Haram, Al Shabad, and ISIS (to name a few) from Nigeria, Sudan, and Northern Iraq (ie, Yazidi girls and women).

Why do we not learn in history courses, that Islam is the greatest slave empire of all time, dramatically eclipsing any of the others?

It's estimated that Islamic jihadi armies took over 100 million slaves out of Africa, and marched them by foot, into the Middle East. It is also estimated that more than 10% of the kidnapped Africans, died on the way, from starvation, exhaustion, dehydration, and physical abuse. The number of dead slaves is more than the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. This makes Islam a bigger killer than the Nazis.

Islam, which claims to be the "last religion" and the "Religion of Peace" is not just one of the most violent and oppressive empires on the planet, it has not only taken more land and occupies vast swaths of Arabia, Africa, and Southeast Asia (and now encompasses 56 countries), but it has also been one the largest slave traders.

In fact, slave trading in Islam still exists today.

Not only that, the world in Arabic "abeed" is an interchangeable word for slave and a slur for black people.

Far from being an ethical religion, Islam is imbued with brutality and disregard towards all men and women, not to mention, in practice, racism against blacks and all non-Muslims.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Katharine Birbalsingh: The first point is that everyone had slaves. Okay, people of all colors became slaves. For economic reasons, because of war. Because slavery, as odious as it was, was simply a normal way of life.

Arabs were extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did, for about 13 centuries, compared to the three centuries European nations ran the Atlantic slave trade. Arabs marched African slaves across the Sahara Desert, and as such, they died more often. It was customary to castrate them and many died from this practice. The Arabs also enslaved over 1 million white European Christians.

The term slavery in fact comes from the word Slav. The Slavs inhabited Eastern Europe and were taken by the Muslims of Spain in the ninth century. Not to mention that Africans have been enslaving each other for thousands of years.

The second point is that slavery was not about race, and it's important. It was not about race. The only reason we think it's about race is because philosophers like David Hume in the 18th century ranked human beings and put Africans at the bottom, saying that they had no souls. The Enlightenment imposed the concept of race on a practice that had been going on for centuries in order to justify that practice. And why did they have to justify it? And this is the point. Because people in the West began to question slavery's moral validity.

The fact is the people of all colors owned slaves. Both as part of the Atlantic slave trade and outside of it. In the United States and Caribbean, black people - black people - owned thousands of black slaves. And so did the Native Americans. Nearly 20,000 of the Native Americans Five Civilized tribes sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War fighting to keep slavery alive. 28% the black population who were free in New Orleans pledged their support to the Confederacy. All of the 13 southern states of the Confederacy had substantial numbers of black slave owners. There were more than 250,000 free blacks and nearly 4,000 of them were slave masters who owned more than 20,000 slaves.

The practice of slavery was legal after all. We need to remember that governments did not own slaves. Slave owners did. In fact, the US government fought a war to end slavery. How much should the descendants of the 400,000 Union soldiers, who lost their lives fighting to free the slaves, pay to the descendants of the slaves they freed?

Giving people lump sums of money does not work. Economists often point the Georgia Land Lottery of 1832, in which parcels of land were distributed randomly. What happened to the descendants of those who were lucky enough to be given this land? Are they the richest families in Georgia? No. In fact, within one generation after the distribution of the Georgia land, one could not distinguish between those who had been given land and those who hadn't.

Certainly my own direct experiences of working for 20-plus years in the inner city with families on welfare demonstrates this time and time again. Rather than give a man a fish, it is always better to teach him how to fish. All giving the fish does is make the giver feel better.

Reparations might relieve white people of their guilt, but it will do little else.

So back to my initial question. Why are we only discussing whether the West should pay reparations for slavery? Because while slavery was common to all civilizations, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history. Western civilization. Not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all.

Rather than be ashamed as Westerners we should stand proud for having led the world out of a mentality where slavery was the norm, and we should vote against this motion.

[ Full debate: https://youtu.be/HboI2t5_M4I ]

==

No one ever talks about "reparations" from Arabs. The reasons are both multiple and obvious.

[timaeuslover001]

Don't try and address slavery without addressing the WORLDS place in slavery as well. No one was an "innocent party".

[caitlinjohns77]

[ausetkmt]

https://x.com/Joe__Bassey/status/1701860296493547847?t=z8gLfv41GiIWPQq83c58Ng&s=09

Image: a Moor on sale after the beginning of their fall in Spain. The last expelled Moor was in 1492 CE

THE 'CHURCH' WAS THE DRIVING FORCE OF TRANS-ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE AS MUCH AS ISLAM WAS AT THE HEART OF ARAB SLAVE TRADE

IN 1455 CE, Pope Nicholas V. wrote a Roman bull(romanus pontifex) declaring that all Moors, Saracens and all non-christian blacks were to be sentenced to perpetual slavery and Charged as heretics during the early stages of the 'Inquisitions'. By 1492 CE, the Moors (African Maghrebs and some Arabs) surrendered their castles in Iberian peninsula with Spain claiming most of the Moorish territories and persons of black-skin became the 'property' of Spain. Some escaped back to Africa.

In 1493 CE, another declaration was made by Pope Alexander VI(inter caetera), known as 'doctrine of discovery' which gave rise to the idea of 'discovery' as a concept in Europe. What followed this was noted by Karl Marx thus; "what was good for the europeans was obtained on the expense of untold suffering by the Africans and American Indians... the discovery of gold in the America, the extra patient enslavement and the entombment of the minds of the aboriginal population... the turning of Africa into a commercial warrant for the hunting of black skins, signaled the rosy dawn of the capitalist production". Little wonder, Rev. Richard Furman, President of the S. Carolina Baptist convention in 1823 CE, stated that, " the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the holy scriptures, both by precepts and by example ". He was a slave owner. "I draw my warrant from the Scripture of the old and new testaments to hold slaves in bondage" -Rev. Thomas Witherspoon of the Presbyterian church of Alabama, in a letter to 'the emancipator' in 1839 CE. These 'justifications' were stated by many churchmen and women, drawing from the Judeo-Christian Bible.

The revered book of the Mohammedans, the Qur'an, which was written in the 8th/9th century CE, by those who took over from the Nabataean, also indicated in many verses that slavery was 'just'. But in this case, it was often Stated that the followers of the Islamic ideology were to by loving and gentle among themselves but to "fight them[non-followers of the ideology] and allah will punish him by your hands" (Quran 9:14, 15) and that "allah will strike terror unto the unbelievers(Q. 8:60)... and until they pay gizya(Q. 9:29). 'Gizya' was supposed to be an Islamic tax, targeted at the non-followers of the ideology, even if they are not enslaved but if their lands are taken over by followers of the Islamic ideology.

Following several injunctions in the Arabian Quran, the Mohammedans in Iberia had sought to control the situation: "anyone who is known to be from those lands which are known to be lands of Islam should be let go and should be adjudged free. This is the ruling of the jurist of Andalusia "-( Al Umari, 14th cen. Arab historian. But for all else, slavery was allowed.

This was the ugly web that Africa was caught in, in the 7th cen. CE and the 15th cen. CE. And in this way, many Africans became Mohammedans for convenience, especially the Garamantes(an ancient black skinned people with kinky hair), of north Africa, who joined forces with the Islamizing Arabs, whom together went in and took over Iberia in 711CE.

According to Dr. Josef Ben Jochannan, " Africa took-in both the hook, the line and sinker" and that had stretched to this very day. Africans born into this just 'follow the followers', sometimes, even somewhat blindfolded.

[y0ur-maj3sty]

The Arabic Slave Trade is something that is rarely spoken about and often goes unheard of. When we speak of the enslavement of Africans, many of us like to connect it with Europeans, which is fine, but we should never forget they were not the only ones. For over 900 years, Africans were enslaved by Arabic slave traders. They would take Africans from all over the continent including West, East, and North Africa forcing them to march thousands of miles to Slave Markets. The Men, Women, and Children were bound together by the waist and neck so that if one died the rest could drag him or her along. These walks became known as the “Death Marches” and an estimated 20 million Africans died on these walks alone. The Arabs believed it was God’s wish to see Africans enslaved and believed they were uncivilized animals. Sound Familiar? Slaves were beaten and abused regularly although claims have been made that they were not supposed to. Many African Women, young Girls, and Boys would be used as Sex slaves for their owners. Islamic Slave holders would stick their swords and other weapons into the Vagina’s of Black Women and cut off the penis of African Men. This was done because they believed Africans had an uncontrollable sex drive.

Many Africans would be forced to convert to Islam believing if they shared the same religion, it would stop the abuse. Muslim slave traders would also promise them Freedom after conversion. This did not stop the abuse nor did it gain them their freedom. In Fact, one can argue it made them even more enslaved. When Europeans entered the slave industry, Muslim Slave traders would use the religion to exploit Islamic Africans to bring them other Africans. These Africans would then be sold to Europeans. Slavery in the holy city of Mecca would remain until 1966 and in all other Arabic countries until 1990. The Islamic Slave Trade began almost 500 years before the Europeans would come to Africa. It would be a catalyst for the dismantling of the continent and the massive expansion of the Religion. Had it not been for Islam, European Chattel Slavery may never have occurred. History is quite a teacher and once again as the late Dr. John Henrik Clarke once said, “Africa has no friends. If you want a friend, look in the mirror.”

[go-ro]

Pretty damning account of slavery in Mauritania. How can you free people who do not realize they are enslaved? How to reconcile purported equality under the law with servility?

From: Social Currents in North Africa

[etz-ashashiyot]

you always seem to have such a good grasp of what you're talking about. can i ask you for talking points on why the magen david is not a hate symbol? i know it isn't of course (i'm not insane) but i struggle to put into words why. no worries if you don't feel like it or whatever, i just thought i'd ask :) sorry if this is badly worded, i'm not great with words (hence my problem!)

If the Islamic star and crescent isn't a hate symbol despite coming into popular use because it was the symbol of the Ottoman Empire and currently appearing on the flags of multiple countries accused of human rights abuses past and present;

If the Christian cross is not a hate symbol despite being the primary symbol of the religion that drove so many atrocities, wars, and human rights abuses that they are too numerous to name in this simple response, but include the colonialisation of the West and the transatlantic slave trade;

Then then the only real reason anyone might see the Magen David as a symbol of hate specifically because of Israel, despite it being a symbol for Jews going back thousands of years is just straight up antisemitism.

[thebestpartofwakingup]

If you don’t have records but can reasonably extrapolate your family remained in the same area use the year/era of the first regional government/title/tribe you know your family lived under (if you know your family lived under Ottoman rule but don’t know anything else/earlier you can say your knowledge goes back to the 1600s, etc.)

[secular-jew]

Found in a Gaza home: Map of Italy with a Jihadi Islamic ISIS flag: "We will conquer Rome just like we conquered Constantinople".

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The Hidden Truth Behind The End Of Slavery - Thomas Sowell

Slavery was destroyed within the United States at staggering costs in blood and treasure, but the struggle was over within a few ghastly years of warfare. Nevertheless, the Civil War was the bloodiest war ever fought in the Western Hemisphere, and more Americans were killed in that war than in any other war in the country’s history. But this was a highly atypical—indeed, unique—way to end slavery. In most of the rest of the world, unremitting efforts to destroy the institution of slavery went on for more than a century, on a thousand shifting fronts, and in the face of determined and ingenious efforts to continue the trade in human beings.

Within the British Empire, the abolition of slavery was accompanied by the payment of compensation to slave owners for what was legally the confiscation of their property. This cost the British government £20 million—a huge sum in the nineteenth century, about 5 percent of the nation’s annual output.38 A similar plan to have the federal government of the United States buy up the slaves and then set them free was proposed in Congress, but was never implemented. The costs of emancipating the millions of slaves in the United States would have been more than half the annual national output—but still less than the economic costs of the Civil War,39 quite aside from the cost in blood and lives, and a legacy of lasting bitterness in the South, growing out of its defeat and the widespread destruction it suffered during that conflict.

While the British could simply abolish slavery in their Western Hemisphere colonies, they faced a more daunting and longer-lasting task of patrolling the Atlantic off the coast of Africa, in order to prevent slave ships of various nationalities from continuing to supply slaves illegally. Even during the Napoleonic wars, Britain continued to keep some of its warships on patrol off West Africa. Moreover, such patrols likewise tried to interdict the shipments of slaves from East Africa through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf. Brazil capitulated to British demands that it end its slave trade, after being publicly humiliated by British warships that seized and destroyed slave ships within Brazil’s own waters. In 1873, two British cruisers appeared off the coast of Zanzibar and threatened to blockade the island unless the slave market there shut down. It was shut down.

It would be hard to think of any other crusade pursued so relentlessly for so long by any nation, at such mounting costs, without any economic or other tangible benefit to itself. These costs included bribes paid to Spain and Portugal to get their cooperation with the effort to stop the international slave trade and the costs of maintaining naval patrols and of resettling freed slaves, not to mention dangerous frictions with France and the United States, among other countries.40 Captains of British warships who detained vessels suspected of carrying slaves were legally liable if those vessels turned out to have no slaves on board. The human costs were also large.

[..]

None of this means that the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade should be ignored, downplayed, or excused. Nor have they been. A vast literature has detailed the vile conditions under which slaves from Africa lived—and died—during their voyages to the Western Hemisphere. But the much less publicized slave trade to the Islamic countries had even higher mortality rates en route, as well as involving larger numbers of people over the centuries, even though the Atlantic slave trade had higher peaks while it lasted. By a variety of accounts, most of the slaves who were marched across the Sahara toward the Mediterranean died on the way.53 While these were mostly women and girls, the males faced a special danger—castration to produce the eunuchs in demand as harem attendants in the Islamic world.

[..]

On the issue of slavery, it was essentially Western civilization against the world. At the time, Western civilization had the power to prevail against all other civilizations. That is how and why slavery was destroyed as an institution in almost the whole world. But it did not happen all at once or even within a few decades. When the British finally stamped out slavery in Tanganyika in 1922 it was more than half a century after the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States, and vestiges of slavery still survived in parts of Africa into the twenty-first century.

==

This video pairs visual elements with Sowell's audiobook reading of his own book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals."

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

The Blockade of Africa began in 1808 after the United Kingdom outlawed the Atlantic slave trade, making it illegal for British ships to transport slaves. The Royal Navy immediately established a presence off Africa to enforce the ban, called the West Africa Squadron. Although the ban initially applied only to British ships, Britain negotiated treaties with other countries to give the Royal Navy the right to intercept and search their ships for slaves.

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

The West Africa Squadron, also known as the Preventative Squadron, was a squadron of the British Royal Navy whose goal was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. Formed in 1808 after the British Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act 1807 and based out of Portsmouth, England, it remained an independent command until 1856 and then again from 1866 to 1867.

[caitlinjohns77]

[psychotrenny]

On a more serious note, the Islamic Revolutions of the 19th Century West Sudan (region) are interesting because they provide a relatively early example of holistic ideologically-motivated revolution that follows a deliberate plan of societal renovation. This contrasts with the many less directional revolutions that sought to solve very specific issues or merely change the individuals/associations who held power in society without changing the social structures themselves.

Like the backbone of these Islamic revolutionary movements derived from the West Sudanese intelligentsia and associated strata. Usman dan Fodio, Seku Amadu and Al-ḥājj 'Umar were all prominent scholars with close ties to the regional Islamic mercantile community, while much of their initial following derived from their students and the relatives of students. These movements also had very clear ideas of how they wanted to restructure society both socially and economically. While rallying against the specific misdeeds of local rulers (abuses of power, unfair taxation), each of reformers also had their sights set higher than the replacement of bad individuals with good ones.

Instead of merely removing the morally corrupt and religiously syncretic rulers, the reformers strove to expunging all pagan elements from broader society while establishing a stronger education system to more permanently spread and maintain orthodox Islam within their territories. And instead of merely lowering the taxes as new rulers they changed the basis that taxation laws were founded on; employing Maliki school Sharia instead of going entirely off the whims of worldly rulers. There were institutional changes to the very nature of Statehood in the region too. States were no longer ruled by kings who were divine personages themselves; they were replaced by Amirs who functionally first among equals with the other governing scholars. This meant that many formerly powerful institutions were either rendered impotent (Palace Slave officials) or eliminated altogether (the office of Queen mother/sister). Like through their study of Islamic literature and analysis of the societies they lived in, these scholars came up with a plan to change their societies and to one extent or another put it into action. The changes the wrought went far far deeper than the names of the rulings families

Mind you it's important not to exaggerate the extent of these changes. They may have deliberately altered the nature and mechanisms of culture and politics, but the mode of production did not receive similar treatment. There were certainly economic changes in the region throughout the 19th century but these were driven more by international trade relations than any domestic political programmes*; a decline in demand for slaves and increase in demand for the agricultural products from the region (Kola Nuts, Peanuts, Palm Oil etc.) meant a region wide decrease in the export of slave as more of them were retained locally for employment in agriculture. However this was a process that occurred throughout West Africa rather than being confined to the Islamic Sudan; it was not a result of deliberate effort by Islamic Reformists. These were revolutions of the Superstructure, not the Base. To put it in European terms they had much more in common with the Liberal revolutions of the 18th century than the Communist ones of the 20th.

Still the fact that there was any kind of genuine ideological program at all, complete with its share of well known thinkers and an entire library of relevant literature, certainly makes it more recognisable to the modern revolutionary than many of the other civil wars and succession disputes given such a title. Even ignoring how important this process was for the West Sudan specifically, it's a very interesting slice of history that more people should be at least aware of. This post was largely based on volume 6 of the UNESCO General History of Africa (mainly chapters 21-3) and I'd highly recommend reading the whole thing if you're curious. At bare minimum it should be remembered that this sort of history is not unique to Europe

*I've definitely read a paper (which I cannot for the life of me find in my notes so if anyone knows something relevant it would be greatly appreciated) that suggests these processes aided the Islamic Reformers as many of the Pagan/Syncretic rulers relied mostly on slave raiding and sale while the more orthodox Islamic communities were already more involved in plantation production. However I've seen nothing to suggest this was a direct influence on or result of Islamic Reformist politics and a similar process occurred in the Pagan kingdoms to the South and East too

[whencyclopedia]

Hausaland

Hausaland, sometimes referred to as the Hausa Kingdoms, was a group of small independent city-states in northern central Africa between the Niger River and Lake Chad which flourished from the 15th to 18th century CE. The origins of the Hausa are not known, but one hypothesis suggests they were a group of indigenous peoples joined by a common language - Hausa - while another theory explains their presence as a consequence of a migration of peoples from the southern Sahara Desert. The cities prospered thanks to local and interregional trade in such commodities as salt, precious metals, leather goods, and slaves. Islam was adopted by many of the rulers and elite of the city-states in the 14th and 15th century CE but was also one of the reasons for their loss of independence when the Muslim Fulani leader Usman dan Fodio (r. 1803-1815 CE) launched a holy war and conquered the region in the early 19th century CE.

Geography & Origins

The name Hausaland derives from the Hausa term Kasar hausa, meaning the 'country of the Hausa language', although the area also included other peoples such as the Tuareg, Fulbe, and Zabarma. The term 'Hausa' was in use only from the 16th century CE as the people called themselves according to which specific city-state or kingdom they belonged to.

Hausaland was located in the Sahel region between the Niger River and Lake Chad in north-central Africa in what is today northern Nigeria. The Sahel is the semi-arid strip of land running across Africa between the Sahara Desert in the north and the Savannah grassland to the south. Hausland, specifically, stretched from the Air mountains (north) to the Jos plateau (south) and from Borno (east) to the Niger Valley (west). This region saw the development of towns by the Hausa-speaking people from 1000 to 1300 CE.

The exact origins of the Hausa cities are not known, but theories include a migration of peoples from the southern Sahara who, abandoning their own lands following the increased desiccation of that area, established new settlements in what would become known as Hausaland. An alternative theory suggests that the Hausa people originally lived on the western shore of Lake Chad and when the lake shrank (as a consequence of the same climatic changes that affected the Sahara) they occupied this new and fertile land and then eventually spread to the immediate north and west. There is as yet, unfortunately, no archaeological evidence to support either of these two theories. As a consequence, there is a third hypothesis, which is that the Hausa had not migrated from anywhere but were indigenous to the region. Support for this theory lies in the fact that there is no tradition of migration in Hausa oral history.

There is, though, a foundation legend, known as the Bayajida or Daura legend, although this probably dates to the 16th century CE and reflects the increased influence of Islam in the region at that time. According to this tradition, Bayajida, a prince from Baghdad, arrived at the court of the ruler of the Kingdom of Kanem (or the Bornu Empire as it became by the 16th century CE). Receiving an unfavourable reception, Bayajida headed eastwards until he came upon the city of Daura. There, the queen and her kingdom were being terrorized by a great snake. Bayajida stepped in and killed the troublesome serpent and promptly married the queen. Together they had a son called Bawogari who then went on to have six sons of his own, each of which became the king of a Hausa city-state. Meanwhile, Bayajida had another son, this time with one of his concubines. This illegitimate son, called Karbogari, had seven sons, and these went on to rule seven other Hausa cities. This story neatly explains how the various cities were established but not, of course, just where Daura and its queen came from.

Continue reading...

[sunder-the-gold]

Listen, please understand that people like me are doing our best to see things from your perspective. You are a cis white male living in a deep-red flyover state. I get that you don't exactly have a lot of motivation to support BIPOC or 2SLGBTQ+ people. But you also need to see that we aren't asking you to support us, but at least you could stop helping people who want us dead?

I think the part that confuses me the most is that this shouldn't even be a hard choice. If you want to broadcast what a hardcore rad-trad right-wing ultra conservative you are… Then OKAY I guess?? You do you. But how exactly does reblogging R-slur filled posts from Bronys like r4cs0 and takashi0 help you do that? I would think that reblogging from people who jerk off to clop porn would be the opposite of what a conservative would do!

So all we are asking is that you unfollow and block a group of people who sexually objectify characters from a children's cartoon show. And then you can go back to bragging about how hard you are going to vote for Trump in November. This seems like a win-win to me.

Hey, @r4cs0, @takashi0, you've got cowardly anonymous character-assassins making the rounds.

I haven't even seen or registered r4cs0's name in forever, and I'm fairly sure I haven't reblogged anyone saying the word "retarded".

But God save us from mean words, because the Far Left sure don't restrain themselves from wishing death and rape on anyone who opposes them.

Really hilarious how Anon wrings their hands about other people disapproving of their life-style while turning around and trying to shame you for what they claim is yours.

(It sure wasn't Bronys who made a mockery of the Last Supper at the Paris Olympics. Exchanging Jesus Christ's message of self-sacrifice and forgiveness for Dionysius' debauchery and hedonism.)

Yet I'm supposed to be the conservatively religious bigot, according to Anon! As though what I'm trying to conserve isn't the American tradition of freedom, as laid out in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

The same document that Frederick Douglas was also told (by Marxists) was written by rich white slavers to keep the black man down, until Fred actually read the document and spent the rest of his life championing it as the best model by which all men could enjoy legal equality, liberty, and peace.

Anon also doesn't want me to treat non-'white' people poorly, but they want to make absolutely sure that I know that they see me as 'white' and that I should see myself as 'white', too. Who's the racist?

Which 'white'? I've got no Anglo-Saxon or Germanic heritage in my Irish/Italian mix. And that's setting aside how much the Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans hated each other before I came to be, as a fourth-generation unhyphenated American of the USA.

Anon, I only give a shit about my skin color because I biologically cannot gain a tan for any protection from the sun... and because your political cult think I ought to be shamed and punished for the accident of my birth.

I think Europeans demonstrated great capability by conquering the majority of the planet, and if God's not real and there's no truth but Power, then "might-makes-right" is as legitimate a morality as any other.

But God is real so thankfully He used the imperialism of mere mortals to spread His message of mercy and love so far and deep into the anglosphere that appealing to such virtues seems to Anon like a good way to convince people to do what Anon wants.

Those arguments certainly proved good enough in the anglosphere to bring an end to the Western slave trade, while the Islamic slave trade continues to this day in open-air markets in Libya.

Anon should try appealing to those virtues in Islamic nations and see how far it gets them. Maybe as far as the roof and then the short trip back down to ground-level.

How about in China? Try asking the people of Tibet or the Uyghur Muslims about Communist mercy. Ask the people of India and Pakistan how China respects their dependence on the water of the rivers flowing into their borders from China.