Christianity's role in African Slavery

[Enoch07]

If you have contradictory evidence please post it for analysis.

Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

"Chattel slavery is a specific servitude relationship where the slave is treated as the property of the owner. As such, the owner is free to sell, trade, or treat the slave as he would other pieces of property and the children of the slave often are retained as the property of the master.[8] There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Arab or European traders."

It is a shared human past. I am stating that the Atlantic slave trade cannot be blamed on African Americans.

If modern America must share the guilt of its ancestors in the past for slavery then so must Africans Americans. You cannot apply guilt to one and not another. That is injustice.

What involvement Africans had in the Atlantic slave trade was shaped by Europeans.

Wrong again read my link and stop asserting nonsense.

Again, I have stated that slavery is morally wrong with no exceptions. Our conversation concerns specifics not generalities.

Then admit African Americans share the burden of guilt of slavery as does the rest of America.

Which means blaming African Americans, whose ancestor's cultural ties aren't even known due to our treatment of them?

Due to the treatment of their own ancestors. If Britain never decided to use slaves in the Colonies, the slaves from Africa would have still been slaves, they just would have been sold elsewhere is all.

Think of how hard it is to remove Confederate symbols from public spaces without protests about "erasing history."

Leave it in the past and move forward like Jay.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

"Chattel slavery is a specific servitude relationship where the slave is treated as the property of the owner. As such, the owner is free to sell, trade, or treat the slave as he would other pieces of property and the children of the slave often are retained as the property of the master.[8] There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Arab or European traders."

Wrong again read my link and stop asserting nonsense

Note: "...evidence is incomplete." Also from the article:

"The forms of slavery in Africa were closely related to kinship structures. In many African communities, where land could not be owned, enslavement of individuals was used as a means to increase the influence a person had and expand connections.[7] This made slaves a permanent part of a master's lineage and the children of slaves could become closely connected with the larger family ties.[1]Children of slaves born into families could be integrated into the master's kinship group and rise to prominent positions within society..."

And:

"Many slave relationships in Africa revolved around domestic slavery, where slaves would work primarily in the house of the master but retain some freedoms. Domestic slaves could be considered part of the master's household and would not be sold to others without extreme cause. The slaves could own the profits from their labour (whether in land or in products), and could marry and pass the land on to their children in many cases."

Also:

"According to Ugo Kwokeji, early European reports of slavery throughout Africa in the 1600s are unreliable because they often conflated various forms of servitude as equal to chattel slavery...kinship structures and rights provided to slaves (except those captured in war) appears to have limited the scope of slave trading before the start of the Arab slave trade and the Atlantic slave trade."

If modern America must share the guilt of its ancestors in the past for slavery then so must Africans Americans. You cannot apply guilt to one and not another. That is injustice.

Then admit African Americans share the burden of guilt of slavery as does the rest of America.

As I've stated, African Americans are the descendants of slaves not the slave traders. We are (as I provided evidence for) still dealing with the repercussions of their enslavement. While likely everyone has the very human cultural guilt of slavery given its ubiquity, I am not willing to assign guilt of the Atlantic slave trade to the descendants of its victims. Least of all while climates of racism towards them still exist.

Due to the treatment of their own ancestors. If Britain never decided to use slaves in the Colonies, the slaves from Africa would have still been slaves, they just would have been sold elsewhere is all.

So you are suggesting that Europeans may as well have used them since they were already enslaved? I mean, they were people not things, and Britain could have just as easily freed them as used them as slaves.

View attachment 31604
Leave it in the past and move forward like Jay.

I get that often the Southern Cross is used as a symbol of heritage: oddly, lots of my fellow rural Mainers fly it as a symbol of rural identity (mostly for controversy or to align with pop country culture, I think, since New England has its own rural identity separate from the South). However, it's connection to a racist past should not be forgotten. Consider the similarities between Holocaust denial and the role of slavery in Southern succession: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article29557972.html

"It’s notable that when Ku Klux Klan members recently rallied in South Carolina, they carried both the battle flag and the Nazi swastika. The two flags in recent years have been commonly seen together at white supremacist groups and gatherings.

'Those who fly both flags rely on horribly distorted versions of history,' said Potok. 'They both say that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, and that the Holocaust was exaggerated, or didn’t happen.'"

 

[Enoch07]

Note: "...evidence is incomplete." Also from the article:

Now now don't quote mine to take it out of context. That's just dishonest. Here it is in context.

"There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Arab or European traders."

In north Africa the practice of chattel slavery history is long known historical fact. The only "questionable" part about it is did it extend throughput the whole continent or not. That is where the evidence is inconclusive. Regardless, it.is proof chattel slavery existed in Africa long before Europeans got involved.

So you are suggesting that Europeans may as well have used them since they were already enslaved?

No

However, it's connection to a racist past should not be forgotten.

How is it to be remembered then if it is erased?

 

[River Sea]

My nation was totally decimated in 1900 by the Brittish empire in the Anglo Boer war where a quarter of our population was wiped out in concentration camps.

@GoodAttention @Bharat Jhunjhunwala
what's this about the Anglo Boer War? Would you fight that war or not fight that war?

How fast did it take for Mahatma Gandhi to found an ambulance corps of around 1100 volunteers? How fast did that take?

How cold was it during winter during December that slipped by one month? Was there any snow?

What did Tamil people who spoke Tamil think about this Anglo-Boer War? What type of trading happened?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let's consider a significant difference.....
Slavery in Ameristan is illegal, & vigorously fought...& should be even more so.
But the Bible appears to condone it.

Your wrong. Slavery is illegal only for private individuals. It's still legal for the government.

 

[oldbadger]

What role did Christianity play in African Slavery?
Historical records show that Islam and Christianity played an important role in enslavement in Africa. The Arab-controlled Trans-Saharan slave trade helped to institutionalise slave trading on the continent. And during the 'age of expedition', European Christians witnessed caravans loaded with Africans en-route to the Middle East.
Others arriving much later in West Africa observed slavery in African societies, leading them to assume that
African enslavement was intrinsic to the continent.


For many of these early European explorers, the Bible was not only regarded as infallible, it was also their primary reference tool and those looking for answers to explain differences in ethnicity, culture, and slavery, found them in Genesis 9: 24-27, which appeared to suggest that it was all a result of 'sin'.

Moreover, in Genesis 10, the 'Table of Nations' describes the origins of the different 'races' and reveals that one of the descendants of Ham is 'Cush' - Cush and the 'Cu****es' were people associated with the Nile region of North Africa.
In time, the connection Europeans made between sin, slavery, skin colour and beliefs would condemn Africans.

In the Bible, physical or spiritual slavery is often a consequence of sinful actions, while darkness is associated with evil. Moreover, the Africans were subsequently considered 'heathens' bereft of Christianity, although scholars now suggest that Christianity reached Africa as early as the early 2nd century AD and that the Christian communities in North Africa were among the first in the world. However, Europeans doubtlessly refused to acknowledge the relevance of African Christianity as it appeared irreconcilable with the continent's cultural surroundings.

Religion is the scum of the Earth

People were involved in the slave trade.
Many were Christians, many were Muslims but many were Africans.

Let's not chuck accusations around now because all those who took part are dead.

I googled the question and the first answer was as shown below.... Even self righteous folks today probably had forefathers who accepted, supported or took part in slavery.

Google:
Africans raided for slaves often in connivance with local chiefs and then acted as middlemen with European and Arab purchasers. She recounts stories of the ambivalence of at least some Africans about the role of their ancestors in the slave trade.

 

[oldbadger]

And Guess what.
I am from South Africa.
I am white!
These people being killed in South Africa is due to the Black Leaders in government who dont have a clue on how to run the police force, jails, and every other facet of government from municipalities to the cabinet.
These Black ministers of police dont have control over their friends who they gave the jobs to in thee command of the police force etc.
The Black police are corrupt, and they are te ones running Nigerian brothels, drug trafficing and gangs.

Really? How are South African police running Nigerian brothels?

I thought you were going to tell us about South Africa.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your wrong. Slavery is illegal only for private individuals. It's still legal for the government.

You erroneously conflate punishment & conscription
with slavery that the Bible condones, ie, private buying,
selling, & using of humans.

 

[BrokenBread]

What role did Christianity play in African Slavery?
Historical records show that Islam and Christianity played an important role in enslavement in Africa. The Arab-controlled Trans-Saharan slave trade helped to institutionalise slave trading on the continent. And during the 'age of expedition', European Christians witnessed caravans loaded with Africans en-route to the Middle East.
Others arriving much later in West Africa observed slavery in African societies, leading them to assume that
African enslavement was intrinsic to the continent.


For many of these early European explorers, the Bible was not only regarded as infallible, it was also their primary reference tool and those looking for answers to explain differences in ethnicity, culture, and slavery, found them in Genesis 9: 24-27, which appeared to suggest that it was all a result of 'sin'.

Moreover, in Genesis 10, the 'Table of Nations' describes the origins of the different 'races' and reveals that one of the descendants of Ham is 'Cush' - Cush and the 'Cu****es' were people associated with the Nile region of North Africa.
In time, the connection Europeans made between sin, slavery, skin colour and beliefs would condemn Africans.

In the Bible, physical or spiritual slavery is often a consequence of sinful actions, while darkness is associated with evil. Moreover, the Africans were subsequently considered 'heathens' bereft of Christianity, although scholars now suggest that Christianity reached Africa as early as the early 2nd century AD and that the Christian communities in North Africa were among the first in the world. However, Europeans doubtlessly refused to acknowledge the relevance of African Christianity as it appeared irreconcilable with the continent's cultural surroundings.

Religion is the scum of the Earth

Wait.....And yet the majority of Black Americans are CHRISTIAN ?
Black Americans are also mostly Christian (72%).
What's up with that ?
Given your screed on the bible how do you account for this glaring inconsistency of the majority of blacks clinging to their bibles ?
Is it the fact that Blacks are just not as smart as yourself , combined with the white privilege democrat racist belief as stated by President Biden that Black people lack the ability to think diversely as individuals, as compared to other races ?

2020 elections

Biden: Latino community is diverse, ‘unlike the African American community’​

President Donald Trump quickly attacked Biden over the remark.

Joe Biden said in remarks on Wednesday that the Latino community is “incredibly diverse,” “unlike” the Black community.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2020 PRRI Census of American Religion: County-Level Data on Religious Identity and Diversity
PRRI Staff,

07.08.2021
Topics: Religion & Culture
The American Religious Landscape in 2020
Black Americans are also mostly Christian (72%). More than six in ten (63%) are Protestant, including 35% who identify as evangelical and 28% who identify as non-evangelical Protestants. Seven percent of Black Americans are Catholic, while 2% are Muslim and 2% are Buddhist, 2% are another religion, and 1% are Jehovah’s Witnesses; less than 1% identify as Latter-day Saint, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, or Hindu. More than one in five (21%) Black Americans are religiously unaffiliated. More Black Americans identified as Christian in 2013 (79%) and fewer said they were religiously unaffiliated (16% in 2013).

 

[River Sea]

Moreover, in Genesis 10, the 'Table of Nations' describes the origins of the different 'races' and reveals that one of the descendants of Ham is 'Cush' - Cush and the 'Cu****es' were people associated with the Nile region of North Africa.

@GoodAttention
Who did Moses married and why?

Did Tharbis ever travel with Moses to Gerar, land of the Philistines

Yet later Moses had to avoid Gerar, land of the Philistines how come?

@GoodAttention

Tharbis is Moses' wife and yet couldn't travel through the land of the Philistines because what would have happened if they did? Would they be gathered as slaves then?

What is a slave? What is trade? Because no one can trade humans because of what reasons; humans are not seashells, nor are humans coins, because of what reasons?

Yet who is Tharbis? The amount of cows? How many cows is the worth of Tharbis?

How to measure the worth of a female with the amount of cows and sheep? Is that slave then?

What is a slave, according to Moses? Is it how many cows and sheep compare to the worth of a wife? Is that a slave? Because how did Moses think? Did Moses think similar to a master to his wife, a slave?
Were wives slaves or not slaves back when?

 

[River Sea]

"The forms of slavery in Africa were closely related to kinship structures. In many African communities, where land could not be owned, enslavement of individuals was used as a means to increase the influence a person had and expand connections.[7] This made slaves a permanent part of a master's lineage and the children of slaves could become closely connected with the larger family ties.[1]Children of slaves born into families could be integrated into the master's kinship group and rise to prominent positions within society..."

@Guitar's Cry
Did Moses or Krishna ever travel through Africa, and if so, how come? What were Krishna and Moses' thoughts about slavery, and did droughts ever cause slavery?

How come land in Africa wasn't owned for, so no one was called Lord in Africa then? Because the Lord means land owner.

So if there were owners of land in Africa, then that would prevent being gathered as slaves. How does the owner of land help prevent this? Does it cause people to fight to protect what they own compared to not owning land, so no need to protect?

 

[River Sea]

People were involved in the slave trade.
Many were Christians, many were Muslims but many were Africans.

@oldbadger How did they think through their religions as they had slaves? How did they use their religions to cause slavery as morally good or right?

How did slaves feel about this? Does anyone know?

What leaders in the Bible were slaves, and how did they deal with the stress of being a slave?

 

[Viker]

The Bible is either ambiguous about or in favor of slavery. Show one part or passage that raises moral objection to ownership of other humans and then their compulsory labor. One thing for certain, it doesn't outright command/demand slavery as a prerequisite of any religious duty. One could deduce that the Bible doesn't have in it the view that it as a moral obligation or even necessary.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

@Guitar's Cry
Did Moses or Krishna ever travel through Africa, and if so, how come? What were Krishna and Moses' thoughts about slavery, and did droughts ever cause slavery?

Um...I dunno. I don't quite get the gist of the question.

How come land in Africa wasn't owned for, so no one was called Lord in Africa then? Because the Lord means land owner.

Africa is huge. It has always been diverse and full of large kingdoms and empires that have rivaled or exceeded those of Europe or Asia.

So if there were owners of land in Africa, then that would prevent being gathered as slaves. How does the owner of land help prevent this? Does it cause people to fight to protect what they own compared to not owning land, so no need to protect?

You lost me here, too. Mind restating?

 

[ppp]

The Bible is either ambiguous about or in favor of slavery.

The Bible both advocates for and condones slavery explicitly. There is no ambiguity on the matter.

To be clear

• advocate means attempting to justify, support, and/or create a legal or cultural framework for the ownership of persons as property.
• condone means to accept or to allow

In the Bible, God clearly and explicitly does both.

Show one part or passage that raises moral objection to ownership of other humans and then their compulsory labor.

There are no passages that raise "moral objection to ownership of other humans". At the very most, there are passages that raise moral objects to specific subsets of humans. e.g. Hebrew men. The citations of objections to slavery fall into one of three categories 1) don't enslave "us" (the in group), 2) don't enslave that specific guy, and 3) insertion of the interpretation of don't enslave any human into "love thy neighbor".

One thing for certain, it doesn't outright command/demand slavery as a prerequisite of any religious duty. One could deduce that the Bible doesn't have in it the view that it as a moral obligation or even necessary.

Are you implying that in order for the advocacy for slavery to be immoral that the advocacy must be for mandatory ownership? I don't think that your standard of "moral obligation" is a rational or moral foundation. The Bible advocates for the moral permissibility of slavery. That is damning.

 

[ppp]

People were involved in the slave trade.
Many were Christians, many were Muslims but many were Africans.

Let's not chuck accusations around now because all those who took part are dead.

I googled the question and the first answer was as shown below.... Even self righteous folks today probably had forefathers who accepted, supported or took part in slavery.

Google:
Africans raided for slaves often in connivance with local chiefs and then acted as middlemen with European and Arab purchasers. She recounts stories of the ambivalence of at least some Africans about the role of their ancestors in the slave trade.

This is the long form of the "they did it, too" excuse.

 

[oldbadger]

@oldbadger How did they think through their religions as they had slaves? How did they use their religions to cause slavery as morally good or right?

How did slaves feel about this? Does anyone know?

What leaders in the Bible were slaves, and how did they deal with the stress of being a slave?

I don't know. Have you got any clues?

 

[oldbadger]

This is the long form of the "they did it, too" excuse.

Yep. Only it's not an excuse, but to those who took part it would be an indictment.
Anybody who points at only one group of perpetrators is biased, don't you think?

 

[granpa]

Do you people really not know that the modern enslavement of black africans began with Dum Diversas? Dum Diversas - Wikipedia
This was an attempt to stop the Muslims of the Ottoman empire from destroying Constantinople. It didnt work.
What are they teaching you in school these days?

Dum Diversas (english: While different) is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized King Afonso V of Portugal to fight, subjugate, and conquer “those rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish Christian Religion”— namely, the "Saracens (Muslims) and pagans" in a militarily disputed African territory. The document consigned warring enemies that lost to "perpetual servitude".[1][2][3] This and the subsequent bull (Romanus Pontifex), issued by Nicholas in 1455, gave the Portuguese what they saw as moral justification to freely acquire slaves along the African coast by force or trade. The edicts are thus seen as having facilitated the Portuguese slave trade from West Africa and as having legitimized the European colonization of the African continent.[4]

In 1686 the Holy Office limited the bull by decreeing that Africans enslaved by unjust wars should be freed

The fall of Constantinople, also known as the conquest of Constantinople, was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Empire. The city was captured on 29 May 1453 as part of the culmination of a 55-day siege which had begun on 6 April.

 

[ppp]

Yep. Only it's not an excuse, but to those who took part it would be an indictment.

What do you think the indictment is? Because it seems to me that you are not trying to defend the honor of those who did not take part, but rather exculpate Christianity from its institutionalized support and practice of slavery by pointing at other groups who indulged in similar or identical practices.

Anybody who points at only one group of perpetrators is biased, don't you think?

I think that your "points at" is dishonest. I think that when someone points at the behavior of Group A, that the non-biased thing to so is to evaluate Group A. That even if Groups B, C and D participated in the same behavior as Group A, that the behaviors of Groups B, C and D do not mitigate or excuse Group A's behavior.


Did you never write a single subject thesis or position paper in school where you discuss a single topic and draw conclusions within that scope? Case studies are not inherently biased. Nor are trend studies.

You seems to be trying to do is to insist that the only proper way to evaluate the behaviors and effects of an institution over time is by a comparative study. But maybe I misunderstand you in that regard.