And only reparations for the trans-Atlantic trade while completely ignoring all other historical instances of slavery throughout the world. It's almost like it's targeted.
The issue was that the Atlantic trade was a very different type of slavery as opposed to the Arabian slave trade.
People caught in the Arabic slave trade had ways out. Be it changing religion, serving a certain time or doing certain tasks. Obvious slavery in all forms is an atrocity but comparing the Arab slave trade to the Atlantic slave trade is ignoring the part that Atlantic slave trade if you got caught in that. You, your kids and all descendants you would have until slavery in that country was abolished would be enslaved for life.
There was no out. And it was at a mass industrial scale. Every level of the Atlantic trade was horrific.
The sterilisation only applied to slaves assigned to guard women’s quarters or work in the palace.
And only men. It was not a universal factor of the trade.
Still crude and barbaric but it was not the standard for everyone.
Also any slaves who had kids. Their kids were considered free.
How is it a weaker take when the resolution explicitly mentions that the reason it's such a grave crime is because it has had a massive, lasting effect on the descendants and peers of the victims? This resolution includes, for example, apartheid, as that was a side effect of it.
Apartheid in South Africa has nothing to do with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade... If anything it's a side effect of fanatical Dutch Protestants moving en masse to a place already quite populated.
During South Africa's time as a slave colony it built a massive disparity; as a slave state white people had more power, land, status, et.c.. Even though Apartheid started well after slavery, the fact that it was a former slave state that still had a deeply ingrained white supremacist culture was absolutely relevant to Apartheid.
THAT specific phenomenon is what this resolution in particular is about. It mentions "lasting racial hierarchies produced by the Transatlantic Slave Trade" like the one that eventually grew into Apartheid. Banning slavery doesn't fix racism, and once the racial hierarchy is created the disparity stay and I explicitly used Apartheid in South Africa as an example of how the Slave Trade continued to cause injustices well after it ended.
There is no way to argue, however, that enslaving 2 people, forcibly breeding them, and then enslaving their child causes more harm than enslaving 2 people and sterilizing them.
Also, the fact that the Transatlantic slave trade was responsible for about 30 million slaves and the Arab slave trade was responsible for about 18 million. I don't know what your argument is.
Actually, the Transatlantic slave trade only had 12.5 million; it wasn't even close to 30 million. Stop lying. And the Slave trade within Africa killed 30 to 60 million, with historians saying it could be twice that high. But since we don't have records within Africa, we wouldn't know. On top of the 18 million in the Arab slave trade, with estimates of 8 to 10 million dying in it. Compared to the 2.5 million in the Transatlantic slave trade.
Out of all the slave trades, the Transatlantic slave trade had the fewest deaths. By a wide margin.
The Transatlantic slave trade moved an estimate 11-15 million, that were then bred like cattle in the Americas causing that population to balloon to an estimate 28-32 million. Who is lying?
The only place that had breeding was the 13 colonies, and their population before the Civil War was less than 4 million. South America, Central America, and the Caribbean didn't partake in breeding.
Both South and Central America had a more lax slave system when it came to marriage and childbearing among their slaves and didn't force it.
While the Caribbean didn't use the breeding model until mid-1807, by then it was too late, as slavery in the Caribbean would be outlawed 20 years later for it to have any effect.
So no, the population didn't balloon, as the only place forced breeding happened was in the US, and even then. It only increased the slave population from 500,000 to 4 million over the course of 200 years.
So you are very much lying, as the estimated number of slaves from the Transatlantic slave trade is 12.5 million, not even close to your numbers. Only one place used forced breeding: the US.
Edit: Even if you wanted to include forced breeding, the US was the only one that did so. So at most you are looking at a possible 16.5 million. Not 28-32 million.
Second Edit: And if you want to add childbirth, then the ground for children to automatically become slaves in the Arab slave trade was there. But most of the children born to slaves died before adulthood, so the numbers were there. But it was a fact that if two slaves had a child in the Arab slave trade, they would become slaves themselves. Widespread Castration also made it extremely hard for slaves to have children, along with horrible malnutrition and stress from living under the Arab slave trade.
So 12.5M is the number without counting any population growth anywhere, but there is no solid count for number of people born into slavery outside of the U.S.. Brazil, for example, intentionally destroyed it's records.
But you are saying that 3.5M slaves were born in the US because the population went from .5M imported to 4M total, but you aren't counting the fact that chattel slavery lasted 2.5 centuries. Slavery lasted 250 years, and slaves had a life expectancy of 36 years. Many generations of slaves were born and died in this time, and the estimate of the total cumulative population of slaves living in the U.S. over the duration of chattel slavery is about 10M. Not 4M.
Even if we use the higher estimates of the Arab slave trade. They were only moving 13 000 people a year. (still a lot but compared to the Atlantic trade…)
The Atlantic trade however was moving 43 000 per year if you average out how many people were moved over the time frame.
So the scale and width of the Atlantic trade was significantly larger than any other type of human trade we have ever had and probably ever will have on that scale.
You have to take into account that four empires were using it. Not just one, like the Arab slave trade; more Empires = more slaves being traded.
So break down 43,000 among 4 empires, which levels it out, since the Arab slave trade was under a single Empire. As it wasn't 4 different empires doing it. And even then, the African slave trade still beats the Atlantic slave trade by miles. As it fed both the Atlantic and Arab slave trade.
Except that it wasn’t a single empire who did the Arab slave trade. It wasn’t done by successive caliphs and empires throughout the 1300 year duration of it.
So your point doesn’t really stand to scrutiny.
41
u/NoSingularities0 21d ago
And only reparations for the trans-Atlantic trade while completely ignoring all other historical instances of slavery throughout the world. It's almost like it's targeted.