So your argument is, around the same number of people died. So, who had better living conditions: the Indians, or the subhuman African slaves?
I can't believe you really think that. If slavery wasn't that bad then why did so many Africans or blacks runaway. Just like the Jews who ran away during the Holocaust. The Holocaust was terrible and I am in no way condoning it at all, but it isn't special when it comes to atrocities commited by men. I'm assuming it was a terrible time to be Jewish in Germany and I'm not an expert but I believed it lasted about 10 years or so and many lives were lost. But the Trans-Atlantic slave trade goes beyond that of the Holocaust. I mean it lasted for about 200 years so it affected more than just one generation. Then even after it ended entire communities of blacks were slaughtered in the South. I'm not Jewish so I could be wrong, but I haven't heard of many being afraid of going to Germany because they might be killed by the natives, but I know of many black people who are afraid to just go on a leisurely walk in the deep south even today.
Did not matter if it was How do you think Indians ended up in places like Mauritius and South Africa? The British supplied cheap indentured labor after "abolishing" slavery and the Dutch sold them as slaves. [the Dutch never took them to the Netherlands, because slavery was forbidden there, but they sold them in South Africa]
It's only a crime if it's forbidden by the law. That's all I'm saying. Kadark said that the slave trade of African slaves was that biggest crime in the history of mankind. It's not true, because it wasn't a crime. If it happened now, it would very possibly be the biggest crime in the history of mankind indeed.
Take your bullshit regarding the Raj into another thread. The length and brutality of the Black Holocaust, and the 30 million deaths resulting from it, put it on a whole other level. I'd like to feel sorry for the Indians, but something tells me that they were in a much better position to fight back than the poor, impoverished Africans.
Its kind of funny how so many people defend Slavery. Maybe it really wasn't that big of a deal. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regardless of who started it, caused it, or whatever. I used to be brainwashed like that, but the atrocities of the Jim Crow Laws is enough to make me sick, if these were better times I can't even begin to imagine what slavery must have been like. I think the Jewish people have done a better job of making the world recognize their grievances so more people understand their plight, but black people are still faced with comments like these. It wasn't that bad so buck up and stop talking about it. I think they might still be waiting for an apology thats never going to come because people refuse to see the issue at face value.
I agree. It really does make me sick how people understate the events of Black slavery, or say "haven't we heard enough about this already?"
That principle was not applied at Nuremberg. The principles were indicted and tried for crimes that were retroactively defined.
The numbers vary, because the Trans-Atlantic slave was such a bounteous and large-scale event over such a long period of time. The most conservative estimates say about 24 million, but generally, at least 30 million Africans were shipped to different continents over the slave period. Look it up.
Really ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would think all the war crimes committed were already considered crimes before the war.
dude,u put the number up.,id like to see your source. u said 30 million died..now ur saying 30 million were shipped which is it?
Nope, they were defined at Nuremberg. Don't you know that? All the actions were legal under German law and disobedience was punishable by death. Besides, the tribunal had no legal standing to try the defendants, much like Americans would not accept being tried by the ICC for Abu Ghraib and in fact, have rejected it's jurisdiction once
Everybody who was shipped out of Africa as a slave eventually died (malnutrition, inability to work efficiently, suicide, attempting to escape, illnesses that weren't taken care of, etc). There aren't many records to help us explain how many slaves were taken during the 1600s. However, taking into consideration the amount of slaves in later periods (increasing due to labor demands), the time period, and African communities in different places worldwide today, 30 million is a reasonable estimate. Give or take a few million, does it really matter?
Maybe not defend exactly, but they do quite a bit to discredit it. I always hear the same excuses whenever the topic comes up... "It happened forever ago, so it doesn't matter", or my favorite, "Africans did it to their own people" thus removing some of the blame. No one ever brings up the point that some Jewish people turned others in to the Nazis, because it doesn't matter what happened in Germany was terrible regardless of who did what. Thats how I feel people treat slavery anyway. There aren't any Slavery survivors nowadays so you don't get to hear their voices, but hearing the experiences of people who lived through the Jim Crow laws is really sickening just as much so as hearing Holocaust stories. for me anyway.
Info I found: Trans-Atlantic imports by region (1450-1900): 11,328,000 "Conditions on the slave ships were terrible, but the estimated death rate of around 13% is lower than the mortality rate for seamen, officers and passengers on the same voyages." http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm
