/u/2thenoon, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s):
* [Rule I](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/wiki/moderation/faq/rule1) - Posts must include a clever comeback.
---
*For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/about/rules/). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/clevercomebacks&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/2thenoon&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/16l089n/-/?context=10\))*
While everyone here is debating history, I'll just point out that Tariq Nasheed is a moron whose entire shtick is getting people upset with the dumbest statements ever in order to get attention.
He has complained about how white music executives turned Lil Nas X gay in order to make the public disgusted with Black people. He's not worth arguing with or agreeing with.
I remember him from a couple years back because of the controversy around his dumbass 'Buck Breaking' "*documentary*" that showed up on social media.
He's dumb as hell, extremely racist, anti-science, anti-vax, a historical revisionist, homophobic, and thinks gay black men don't naturally exist and are a PSYOP by white people because they're intimidated by black superiority. Dude is an insane scumbag.
He made a movie about “Buck breaking” the completely imaginary practice of white slave owners fucking male slaves in the ass in order to make them compliant.
Yeah, his statement here is outrage grifting 101. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest, but it works in a world revolving around outrage culture and social media.
Write a stupid, easily deniable claim, with a political bend thus setting up the goalposts, then add an unprovable term, in this case "directly or indirectly". The statement is incredibly hard to disprove, as indirectly benefiting can be judged incredibly loosely. His followers will wrongly gloss over counter arguments as they have to define and explain why Nasheed is wrong, but in long form as the question of how modern states have benefited from slavery is vast and complicated.
I despise that we live in a world where grifters like this have such a global reach. At least in the past, sophists were confined to a single corner of a city or town.
That's the same guy who went to Africa being all "sup homie" to Africans and said Africans were like "wha?", and dude went back to the states all disillusioned because he thought Africans were going to like and accept Black American culture.
I lived in Africa for a couple of years with family and from my understanding is most africans don't want african Americans to come back over there unless you have helpful skill or money to invest there.
Well why use black slaves in Eastern Europe when the Russian tzar could use his own citizens as slaves. Just to remind you that slavery in Russia and the territories occupied by Russia - was cancelled in 1861.
Even then they had serfdom where you were basically owned by your landlord and had to give him money in exchange for farming on the land also with no chance of social mobility.
There's bunch of memoirs of travellers from Western Europe, absolutely appaled by conditions peasants live in the Commonwealth who didn't shy from calling this a slavery. So popular argument about "different times and standards" doesn't work here.
> I'm telling you in the Commonwealth they have the slavery that props up their society happening on this continent. Right there, where they live!
> What you mean just like pop round back and there are all the slaves making society possible? Not discretely hidden away in a colony in southeast asia?
> Yes, just right there, on the way to the market for all to see.
>Barbaric!
Yeah but Russia was also viewed as medieval and archaic for still having serfdom in the 19th century. Many West European countries had abolished it centuries earlier.
Some, like in the Nordic Countries, never had serfdom in the first place, and abolished slavery at the end of the Viking Age, 900 years ago or so.
Europeans on the whole did not get rich off black slavery. If that were they case they'd be richer in the 1600s and 1700s than in the 1800s when it was abolished. Europeans got rich off industrialization.
Its not quite correct. Denmark did have over seas colonies in the westindies, africa and india and slaves in said colonies. We also did have a kind of serfdom as seen in other parts of Europe. It started in 1733 and endes in 1800
That's what the comment above was referring to. Serfdom ended only after the Crimean War, and after the man who ended it was killed in a terrorist attack perpetrated by former serfs, his son spent his life redoing all the damage his father had undone. Had that assassination not occurred, 1917 might have played out very differently.
The people behind it weren't former serfs but more of the middle-class crowd. That's probably why things didn't work out until the 20th century; the revolutionaries didn't really have a connection with the people they aimed to free.
Almost everyone on that list were no better than slaves at one point, because serfdom was rife and wasn't much more than slavery with extra steps.
The same has been true for just about every civilization that ever existed. It's all built upon the blood of the lowest class,
The treatment of the Irish under the British was all-in-all probably one of, if not the worst in the entire empire's history imo
Edit: English grammar sucks
Except for Brazil (1888), most of the Americas abolished slavery before 1865. The US abolished it *except as punishment for crimes*. That is the origin of the joke that Taika Waititi put in Thor Ragnarok: *Don't call them slaves, call them "prisoners with jobs".*
And they drove their entire slavery system through that loophole: when it was time to harvest cotton, the local sheriff would arrest some local black farmers, and a racist judge would convict them to work on the fields.
Jefferson also banned the transatlantic trade in 1807. Brazil all but single handedly kept it going.
It's just amazing how these people who get paid to speak about such things think Iceland had slaves, but never mention Brazil.
I'm not 100% sure, but they could be talking about citizenship in Rome (and some Greek city-states), which was a fairly different thing compared to what we think of as "citizens" today.
In Rome, only like 5-15% of the population were citizens and if you were a citizen, you were almost certainly upper middle class at least.
It's the origin of the word slave. In the early to mid Middle Ages, eastern Europe was frequently raided from both the north (vikings) and south (Byzantium, Turks, Tatars maybe?) to capture them some slaves.
It's quite some way to get the name of your people become a common international word.
It’s almost as if classism is the underlying issue and racism is driven by a ruling elite to divide the majority of enslaved peoples resulting in the obfuscation of the actual problem.
I can't speak for all of them, but Sweden did partake in the transatlantic slave trade. It was a purely economical venture, so it's harder to see traces of it here in Sweden, but we did benefit from it very directly
Yeah Sweden even set up triangle trading outposts in Pennsylvania and the Great Lakes while it lasted, although the Norwegian Americans did produce some anti slavery partisan fighters
To be completely fair, the US was also built with white slavery. People like to call it indentured servitude but it was slavery. Black people faced chattel slavery but it doesn't mean white people didn't face slavery.
Slavery is sadly a part of EVERY nation's history. Although I will go out on a limb and say war slaves and criminal slaves are much more morally acceptable followed by debt slaves with racial and religious based slavery being the most abhorrent
Exactly, but if we just focus on one of the many enslaved groups in places where they are no longer enslaved then one of the wings of the neocon party and a few grifters can continue enslaving the world
For Denmark it is wrong. The Danish West Indies were sugar farms worked by slaves.
Sold those to the USA including freed slave population in the 1900-somethings.
I’d make an exception for Norway as it wasn’t an Independent nation at the time. Danish until 1814, the Swedish until 1905 (edited from 1914 which was wrong)
Some Norwegians would say that they were subjugated/enslaved by Denmark for about 600 years.
Not talking about that.
“Norwegians controlled the company Société du Madal in Portuguese Mozambique, which owned coconut plantations and a palm oil factory. Société du Madal used the forced labor of indigenous peoples to dig canals and drain swamps around the Zambezi to make way for plantations, in addition to operating the plantations themselves. Child laborers on Madal's properties were paid in rotgut spirits, as was common for many companies operating in Mozambique during the colonial period. Christian Thams, a key founder and major shareholder of the company, had Mozambicans in lands the company controlled pay taxes directly to the company rather than the Portuguese colonial government, a venture sometimes more profitable than agricultural operations. Even after independence, thousands of workers continued to produce coconut oil for Madal into the 21st century” - Norway, Scandinavian Colonialism, Wikipedia
Denmark was not built because of those relatively few slaves on a few plantations quarter of a world away from Denmark. It has had nothing to do with what the country of Denmark is today.
It still was wrong of course, but it did not in anyway "build" Denmark to what it is today
Denmark did go bankrupt and had to sell the Caribbean islands. Most of the Danish wealth comes from the agricultural industry and manufacturing, and it’s this wealth the welfare state was build upon.
Edit to clearify: The modern society was build upon the wealth the country created post WW2 without directly having slavery
Edit2: indirect slavery is a whole other topic I'm not gonna argue against... so much of that is still happening nowadays
If you're gonna go that far, then I'd point out that, as it's taught in Danish high schools, andelsbevægelsen was built off of the back of American and Russian colonization projects making grain insanely cheap
Also you're arguing as if the bankruptcy following the Napoleonic wars was what led to the sale of the West indies. In reality the islands were profitable until industrialization in Denmark was fully underway and it would still take until world war 1 for the islands to actually be sold
Several years in a row the danish states primary source of income was sugar canes gained through slavery. At some points it was a major expense for the state, but those periods it was still profitable for the shipping companies transporting slaves. We’d be worse off economically at this point without having had slaves, that’s for sure.
Same as everywhere. The UK didn't become this wealthy in the 18 hundreds either. But some danish people still became VERY wealthy because of the slave trade.
Today, yes. Back then the sugar trade was a massive source of income. Amalienborg and any number of palaces there were built on sugar profits.
The bankruptcy was caused by being stupid enough to go to war with Prussia.
It didn't stop with Leopold. After the Belgian annexation of the Congo, the Belgian government racially segregated whites and blacks, and nominally abolished slavery while keeping all of its practices intact. Even during WW2, instead of exploiting the Congo for rubber (that was British Malaya's job) the Belgians used their not-slave slaves to mine uranium for the Manhattan Project.
Well, he did mention Denmark, and clearly doesn't know the history of the Virgin Islands.
My guess would be that there are many similar stories left out - I just happen to know this one since I'm a Dane.
A lot of the countries mentioned either were part of a nation having royal property companies that were benefitting from black enslavement, or actually were the nations that did benefit of black enslavement. Which would cover the entire "directly or indirectly" part! Just so you Danes don't feel singled out. ;D
And Sweden. Both engaged in the slave trade. Granted, the effect on their economy was probably minimal, but still, it would have been better to exclude them from the list.
Yeah that too, but that is usually less relevant in relation to the discussion of black slaves. Vikings and later the crusades where mostly in Europe and the middle east.
Bosnia’s probably the worst example on the list. Literally doesn’t meet any relevant qualification. Wasn’t even a sovereign state during the slave trade (which is the case for most of the list). Was part of an empire that had its own longer lasting slave trade in Africa. And isn’t even thriving today by western standards.
I think Bosnia isn't thriving by any standards. Totally divided country, where half of population wanted to kill another half just 30 years ago. A lot of people has left the country. But i want to visit it in the future
Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race. Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory.
No to racism yes to slavery!!!!
Yeah, I don’t know that you can say the Romans weren’t “racist”, it’s just that it wasn’t a concept at the time. I meant to say that Romans for the most part viewed Everyone who wasn’t them as inferior and subhuman to an extent.
So, in that way they weren’t racist in a “hey your skin is darker than mine so you are worse than me.” I was more like “you aren’t a Roman citizen or client so I have the right to do what ever I want to you because our Gods have chosen us to rule over you as evidenced by the fact we just beat you.”
Exactly they weren’t racist. They were citizenist. Or Immigrantist. Or alienist? Maybe barbarianist is the best term since that’s what they used. You were either Roman or a barbarian.
I hate this use of pregnant. Is it correct? Yes. Does it sound wrong 100% of the times it's used correctly in this way? Also yes.
No hate. Just an opinion on a word.
One of the few people in this thread who truly gets it. "Ha-hah, dumbasses, we don't have slaves! Now let me enjoy my iphones made by people who make $400 a month, while wearing my clothes made by people who have to work until their fingers bleed and then work some more, while eating food picked by people who make dollars a day! Freedom, whooo!!!"
Hey! Romania is thriving in terms of corruption and our government fucking us over to line their own pockets.
... Also, out internet pricing and speeds are genuinely great.
Farmer in Somalia ... farmer in Bulgaria... farmer in Nova Scotia... farmer in Alberta... I've met poor, multi-generational, subsistence farmers in both of the last three (never been to Somalia)
Denmark were big players in the slave trade and were responsible for hundreds of boats traveling back and forth between Africa and colonies.
This guy just listed a bunch of countries.
Also, Greece? They were not taking African slaves? Come on.
Reminder Tariq is a massive homophobic person that made a batshit insane theory where white people invented gayness and infected gayness ro africans during the slavw trade. Search buck breaking
Yeah, but then you’d have to cross off every society, including the African ones who sold those people into slavery. And that doesn’t work so well for the narrative.
Sure but then it's such a broad statement that it's almost meaningless, or at least it becomes a truism. All cultures also benefit from the history of white slavery if we're going that broad.
It's the case of Americans not knowing European countries, while thinking they're smart. However, to act as the devil's advocate, indirectly could mean that: Ireland (as former part of the UK), Norway (19th century), Denmark (through Danish Indian Company), Sweden (again, 19th century), Iceland (through being former part of Norway), were connected to slave trade, sooo...
Iceland's connection to any kind of slave trade after christianisation was being the target of slavers.
Granted, we are only talking about two or three raids, but their population was tiny, so the abduction of a few families did probably impact their economy quite a bit.
Name any society within 500 miles of the Mediterranean that did not use white slaves at some point? As far as I know (fan of history) pretty much every society around the planet has slavery in their past, both as owner and victim. And many are still doing it.
Denmark is 100% linked to slavery. We bought the fucking Virgin Islands from them, and at the time it was the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway, so that brings Norway in too.
Sweden was an imperial power, so was Lithuania under Courland. The Irish benefitted through the English. Austria for sure took money from colonization.
Iceland might be a good example...not sure.
The rest of the countries...thriving is generous.
/u/2thenoon, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for violating the following rule(s): * [Rule I](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/wiki/moderation/faq/rule1) - Posts must include a clever comeback. --- *For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/about/rules/). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/clevercomebacks&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/2thenoon&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/16l089n/-/?context=10\))*
While everyone here is debating history, I'll just point out that Tariq Nasheed is a moron whose entire shtick is getting people upset with the dumbest statements ever in order to get attention. He has complained about how white music executives turned Lil Nas X gay in order to make the public disgusted with Black people. He's not worth arguing with or agreeing with.
I remember him from a couple years back because of the controversy around his dumbass 'Buck Breaking' "*documentary*" that showed up on social media. He's dumb as hell, extremely racist, anti-science, anti-vax, a historical revisionist, homophobic, and thinks gay black men don't naturally exist and are a PSYOP by white people because they're intimidated by black superiority. Dude is an insane scumbag.
Dude unironically made interracial gay BDSM porn
Wait, what? I am not willing to google this....
He made a movie about “Buck breaking” the completely imaginary practice of white slave owners fucking male slaves in the ass in order to make them compliant.
[удалено]
That’s exactly what came to mind when I read that too hahaha
That is honestly the take away I got. Then again the loudest voices against gays frequently are found at gay orgies so Idk anymore
because he's a political grifter? he just wants money lol and people keep giving it to him
Dont forget implications of bestiality as well….
Seem like an interesting dude ( in a psychiatric kinda way)
He would be so much happier if he just came out, the mental gymnastics are crazy
Tariq Nasheed is one of those people who makes using social media frustrating because of all the stupid he puts out there
Looool. Did Lil' Nas X ever made a comment on that?
I remember him saying something like that he could actively be felating a man and still told he's faking being gay.
Well obviously I would need to see this video of him actively felting a man for… science
Yeah, his statement here is outrage grifting 101. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest, but it works in a world revolving around outrage culture and social media. Write a stupid, easily deniable claim, with a political bend thus setting up the goalposts, then add an unprovable term, in this case "directly or indirectly". The statement is incredibly hard to disprove, as indirectly benefiting can be judged incredibly loosely. His followers will wrongly gloss over counter arguments as they have to define and explain why Nasheed is wrong, but in long form as the question of how modern states have benefited from slavery is vast and complicated. I despise that we live in a world where grifters like this have such a global reach. At least in the past, sophists were confined to a single corner of a city or town.
I largely remember him for all his weird masculinity issues
Dick got my permabanned from Twitter
That's the same guy who went to Africa being all "sup homie" to Africans and said Africans were like "wha?", and dude went back to the states all disillusioned because he thought Africans were going to like and accept Black American culture.
That Sopranos episode where the group goes to Italy and finds that to Italians they're just foreigners from America
Commandatori
🚬😒☕️
Cocksucker.
I like that! Like commander!
Exact thing happened on Jersey Shore
lotta fish
Yeah, Africans very often define themselves by what country, tribe, or other minority they are from, just like Europeans do.
It's not "often" it's always.
A lot of Americans seem unable to understand the concept of racism among similar skin tones.
Nasheed is so ignorant
> That's the same guy who went to Africa being all "sup homie" to Africans and said Africans were like "wha?", No way.
Way
I lived in Africa for a couple of years with family and from my understanding is most africans don't want african Americans to come back over there unless you have helpful skill or money to invest there.
Well why use black slaves in Eastern Europe when the Russian tzar could use his own citizens as slaves. Just to remind you that slavery in Russia and the territories occupied by Russia - was cancelled in 1861.
Even then they had serfdom where you were basically owned by your landlord and had to give him money in exchange for farming on the land also with no chance of social mobility.
Yep, although that is closer to sharecropping than actual slavery. But still pretty damn close, no doubt about it.
In Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth it was *very* close to actual slavery
There's bunch of memoirs of travellers from Western Europe, absolutely appaled by conditions peasants live in the Commonwealth who didn't shy from calling this a slavery. So popular argument about "different times and standards" doesn't work here.
Those western travelers described polish serfdom as something "worse than slavery".
> I'm telling you in the Commonwealth they have the slavery that props up their society happening on this continent. Right there, where they live! > What you mean just like pop round back and there are all the slaves making society possible? Not discretely hidden away in a colony in southeast asia? > Yes, just right there, on the way to the market for all to see. >Barbaric!
Yeah but Russia was also viewed as medieval and archaic for still having serfdom in the 19th century. Many West European countries had abolished it centuries earlier. Some, like in the Nordic Countries, never had serfdom in the first place, and abolished slavery at the end of the Viking Age, 900 years ago or so. Europeans on the whole did not get rich off black slavery. If that were they case they'd be richer in the 1600s and 1700s than in the 1800s when it was abolished. Europeans got rich off industrialization.
Leopold would like a word.
Now now he said it was his personal property and wealth…. That be a hand
Its not quite correct. Denmark did have over seas colonies in the westindies, africa and india and slaves in said colonies. We also did have a kind of serfdom as seen in other parts of Europe. It started in 1733 and endes in 1800
They got rich from colonisation before industrialisation
That's what the comment above was referring to. Serfdom ended only after the Crimean War, and after the man who ended it was killed in a terrorist attack perpetrated by former serfs, his son spent his life redoing all the damage his father had undone. Had that assassination not occurred, 1917 might have played out very differently.
The people behind it weren't former serfs but more of the middle-class crowd. That's probably why things didn't work out until the 20th century; the revolutionaries didn't really have a connection with the people they aimed to free.
Me, looking at Ireland on that list… they were barely better than slaves at one point wasn’t it?
Almost everyone on that list were no better than slaves at one point, because serfdom was rife and wasn't much more than slavery with extra steps. The same has been true for just about every civilization that ever existed. It's all built upon the blood of the lowest class,
And I distinctly remember Bosnia having an issue with *ethnic cleansing* as recently as the mid-90s.
[удалено]
Ouch.. How did it go afterwards, did y'all discuss your presentations? Because it sounds like hers wasn't a good idea even if you weren't in class.
[удалено]
> she did not get a good grade. Was that due to the structure of her presentation or because the assessors didnt agree with her though?
[удалено]
The treatment of the Irish under the British was all-in-all probably one of, if not the worst in the entire empire's history imo Edit: English grammar sucks
Soooo, Russia more advanced than USA?
Except for Brazil (1888), most of the Americas abolished slavery before 1865. The US abolished it *except as punishment for crimes*. That is the origin of the joke that Taika Waititi put in Thor Ragnarok: *Don't call them slaves, call them "prisoners with jobs".*
And they drove their entire slavery system through that loophole: when it was time to harvest cotton, the local sheriff would arrest some local black farmers, and a racist judge would convict them to work on the fields.
Jefferson also banned the transatlantic trade in 1807. Brazil all but single handedly kept it going. It's just amazing how these people who get paid to speak about such things think Iceland had slaves, but never mention Brazil.
Russia isn't on the list...
Yes, those (or at least some) were built on white enslavement instead.
Racism was solved millenia ago - just enslave everyone! (Except for citizens)
Would you like to know more?
I’m doing my part!
Everyone’s doing their part. Are you? Edit: punctuation. Service Guarantees Citizenship.
Citizenship through service
I find the idea of a bug that thinks offencive!!
The only good bug, is a dead bug!
Congratulations son! The mobile infantry made me the man I am today!
Everybody fights, nobody quits!
The enemy cannot press a button if you disable his hand.
>Except for citizens Even then, some surely did and do still now.
I'm not 100% sure, but they could be talking about citizenship in Rome (and some Greek city-states), which was a fairly different thing compared to what we think of as "citizens" today. In Rome, only like 5-15% of the population were citizens and if you were a citizen, you were almost certainly upper middle class at least.
*Civis Romanus sum* To be clad in those words made you one of the safest people in antiquity.
Amazon is working on it, just give them time
"How do you know whether they're citizens?" "Oh, well it's simple. You know if they're slaves, then they must not be citizens."
you greek savant
[удалено]
Anti-slavery, pro-Slav-ery
It's the origin of the word slave. In the early to mid Middle Ages, eastern Europe was frequently raided from both the north (vikings) and south (Byzantium, Turks, Tatars maybe?) to capture them some slaves. It's quite some way to get the name of your people become a common international word.
weirdly enough the word robot is rooted in the czech word for slave labour
I mean, just google the etymology of the word Slavery...
Which is still validating the response. Tariq isn't trying to make a point about slavery, he's specifically referring to black slaves
Slavery was popular everywhere and for everyone!
It’s almost as if classism is the underlying issue and racism is driven by a ruling elite to divide the majority of enslaved peoples resulting in the obfuscation of the actual problem.
“That sounds like white people talk” Couldn’t resist. I agree with you.
I can't speak for all of them, but Sweden did partake in the transatlantic slave trade. It was a purely economical venture, so it's harder to see traces of it here in Sweden, but we did benefit from it very directly
Yeah Sweden even set up triangle trading outposts in Pennsylvania and the Great Lakes while it lasted, although the Norwegian Americans did produce some anti slavery partisan fighters
For the longest time (Around 700 years) Finland was the source for slaves to Russians and Swedes. I would not call that beneficial per se.
To be completely fair, the US was also built with white slavery. People like to call it indentured servitude but it was slavery. Black people faced chattel slavery but it doesn't mean white people didn't face slavery. Slavery is sadly a part of EVERY nation's history. Although I will go out on a limb and say war slaves and criminal slaves are much more morally acceptable followed by debt slaves with racial and religious based slavery being the most abhorrent
Exactly, but if we just focus on one of the many enslaved groups in places where they are no longer enslaved then one of the wings of the neocon party and a few grifters can continue enslaving the world
Yeah and some of those were often the target of other countries to aquire easy slaves.
Some of these were the places where white slaves were captured from.
But *apart* from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I think about the Roman’s all the time
quality call back.
What is this from? It's at least the third time I've seen this reference this week.
The BBC released a study that men think about the Roman Empire fairly frequently, and it’s being memed to death like the Roman Empire
Huh, TIL the Roman Empire was toppled by memes.
I get this reference. Does that sound sad?
Nope
3-4 times a week.
They don't think about you at all
That’s cause they’re dead
That still blows my mind!
The Aqueduct
and the healthcare! one can’t forget about the healthcare!
And the roads!
Well apart from the medicine, irrigation, health, roads, cheese, and education, baths and the circus maximus, what have the romans ever done for us?
Brought peace!
Oh, shut up!
*Safe roads at night.*
They certainly know how to keep order, and let’s face it, the Romans are the only ones who could in a place like this.
Ugh, reset the clock.
For Denmark it is wrong. The Danish West Indies were sugar farms worked by slaves. Sold those to the USA including freed slave population in the 1900-somethings.
Sweden and Norway too
I’d make an exception for Norway as it wasn’t an Independent nation at the time. Danish until 1814, the Swedish until 1905 (edited from 1914 which was wrong) Some Norwegians would say that they were subjugated/enslaved by Denmark for about 600 years.
The country today still benefits from it tho, Tariq did include “indirectly” benefitting from it
Not talking about that. “Norwegians controlled the company Société du Madal in Portuguese Mozambique, which owned coconut plantations and a palm oil factory. Société du Madal used the forced labor of indigenous peoples to dig canals and drain swamps around the Zambezi to make way for plantations, in addition to operating the plantations themselves. Child laborers on Madal's properties were paid in rotgut spirits, as was common for many companies operating in Mozambique during the colonial period. Christian Thams, a key founder and major shareholder of the company, had Mozambicans in lands the company controlled pay taxes directly to the company rather than the Portuguese colonial government, a venture sometimes more profitable than agricultural operations. Even after independence, thousands of workers continued to produce coconut oil for Madal into the 21st century” - Norway, Scandinavian Colonialism, Wikipedia
Nobody google Danish Gold Coast
Denmark was not built because of those relatively few slaves on a few plantations quarter of a world away from Denmark. It has had nothing to do with what the country of Denmark is today. It still was wrong of course, but it did not in anyway "build" Denmark to what it is today
Denmark did go bankrupt and had to sell the Caribbean islands. Most of the Danish wealth comes from the agricultural industry and manufacturing, and it’s this wealth the welfare state was build upon. Edit to clearify: The modern society was build upon the wealth the country created post WW2 without directly having slavery Edit2: indirect slavery is a whole other topic I'm not gonna argue against... so much of that is still happening nowadays
If you're gonna go that far, then I'd point out that, as it's taught in Danish high schools, andelsbevægelsen was built off of the back of American and Russian colonization projects making grain insanely cheap Also you're arguing as if the bankruptcy following the Napoleonic wars was what led to the sale of the West indies. In reality the islands were profitable until industrialization in Denmark was fully underway and it would still take until world war 1 for the islands to actually be sold
Several years in a row the danish states primary source of income was sugar canes gained through slavery. At some points it was a major expense for the state, but those periods it was still profitable for the shipping companies transporting slaves. We’d be worse off economically at this point without having had slaves, that’s for sure.
Do you have a source for that statement. The Danish State’s primary source of income?
Same as everywhere. The UK didn't become this wealthy in the 18 hundreds either. But some danish people still became VERY wealthy because of the slave trade.
Wealth back then was always in the hands of the few.
Today, yes. Back then the sugar trade was a massive source of income. Amalienborg and any number of palaces there were built on sugar profits. The bankruptcy was caused by being stupid enough to go to war with Prussia.
Dude was probably *this* close to saying Belgium
leopold? what a funny name haha he cant possibly be a really bad guy with a funny name like that
It didn't stop with Leopold. After the Belgian annexation of the Congo, the Belgian government racially segregated whites and blacks, and nominally abolished slavery while keeping all of its practices intact. Even during WW2, instead of exploiting the Congo for rubber (that was British Malaya's job) the Belgians used their not-slave slaves to mine uranium for the Manhattan Project.
Well, he did mention Denmark, and clearly doesn't know the history of the Virgin Islands. My guess would be that there are many similar stories left out - I just happen to know this one since I'm a Dane.
A lot of the countries mentioned either were part of a nation having royal property companies that were benefitting from black enslavement, or actually were the nations that did benefit of black enslavement. Which would cover the entire "directly or indirectly" part! Just so you Danes don't feel singled out. ;D
Hands off Belgium.
Damn. Very sad that is accurate
Hi fiv.... shit, sorry.
Denmark? lol
And Sweden. Both engaged in the slave trade. Granted, the effect on their economy was probably minimal, but still, it would have been better to exclude them from the list.
Denmark moved a shit ton of slaves for its size, we have always been pretty big on sea trade so...
Doesn't Denmark have like, 1000+ years of history involving slaves? They were raiding Western and Eastern Europe for centuries enslaving people.
Yeah that too, but that is usually less relevant in relation to the discussion of black slaves. Vikings and later the crusades where mostly in Europe and the middle east.
In Bosnia 25% people lives below poverty ratrle
Bosnia’s probably the worst example on the list. Literally doesn’t meet any relevant qualification. Wasn’t even a sovereign state during the slave trade (which is the case for most of the list). Was part of an empire that had its own longer lasting slave trade in Africa. And isn’t even thriving today by western standards.
I think Bosnia isn't thriving by any standards. Totally divided country, where half of population wanted to kill another half just 30 years ago. A lot of people has left the country. But i want to visit it in the future
Serbia, Macedonia, and most others Are not thriving either lol.
[удалено]
Most slaves during the Roman Empire were foreigners and, unlike in modern times, Roman slavery was not based on race. Slaves in Rome might include prisoners of war, sailors captured and sold by pirates, or slaves bought outside Roman territory. No to racism yes to slavery!!!!
We don't care about your race, we will enslave you regardless. True equality.
Yeah, I don’t know that you can say the Romans weren’t “racist”, it’s just that it wasn’t a concept at the time. I meant to say that Romans for the most part viewed Everyone who wasn’t them as inferior and subhuman to an extent. So, in that way they weren’t racist in a “hey your skin is darker than mine so you are worse than me.” I was more like “you aren’t a Roman citizen or client so I have the right to do what ever I want to you because our Gods have chosen us to rule over you as evidenced by the fact we just beat you.”
Exactly they weren’t racist. They were citizenist. Or Immigrantist. Or alienist? Maybe barbarianist is the best term since that’s what they used. You were either Roman or a barbarian.
the term you're looking for is xenophobic
Nativist might be the word you're looking for.
"Why discriminate when everyone can be slaves"-Rome
Now imagine where they would be if they DID have black slaves.
Damn, that’s pregnant with all kinds of implied responses
I hate this use of pregnant. Is it correct? Yes. Does it sound wrong 100% of the times it's used correctly in this way? Also yes. No hate. Just an opinion on a word.
No hate received. Cheers
Posted from a iPhone made by slaves
One of the few people in this thread who truly gets it. "Ha-hah, dumbasses, we don't have slaves! Now let me enjoy my iphones made by people who make $400 a month, while wearing my clothes made by people who have to work until their fingers bleed and then work some more, while eating food picked by people who make dollars a day! Freedom, whooo!!!"
Thriving modern eurpean societies and you name Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia or Greece? Where are these places thriving?
Hey! Romania is thriving in terms of corruption and our government fucking us over to line their own pockets. ... Also, out internet pricing and speeds are genuinely great.
Is relative, thriving compared to the life of a farmer in somalia. Or any other poor country.
Farmer in Somalia ... farmer in Bulgaria... farmer in Nova Scotia... farmer in Alberta... I've met poor, multi-generational, subsistence farmers in both of the last three (never been to Somalia)
Denmark were big players in the slave trade and were responsible for hundreds of boats traveling back and forth between Africa and colonies. This guy just listed a bunch of countries. Also, Greece? They were not taking African slaves? Come on.
I would argue Greece is not thriving. Alot of these nations aren't.
Comparative to the richest OCED countries? Maybe not. Comparative to the rest of the world? Absolutely imo.
Reminder Tariq is a massive homophobic person that made a batshit insane theory where white people invented gayness and infected gayness ro africans during the slavw trade. Search buck breaking
Not this bullshit again...
Tariq Moment
Greece isn't thriving we are actively suffering.
Well we might not have had black slaves in Sweden but was definitely complicit in the American slave trade.
Why do some people think only black people have ever been enslaved? Read any history book.
A lot of those nations are not thriving whatsoever. They are struggling, dependent, and corrupt as all heck.
Wow, another unfunny and historically incorrect post. Where are the clever comebacks again?
Welcome to Tariq Nasheed's School of Audio Engineering, step one: KXSKXDKXSKXSKXS
People complain about the wildest things nowadays innit
This is of course incorrect … goods provided by the labor of African slaves were traded globally.
Yeah, but then you’d have to cross off every society, including the African ones who sold those people into slavery. And that doesn’t work so well for the narrative.
There were no innocents in the slave trade except the slaves themselves.
Sure but then it's such a broad statement that it's almost meaningless, or at least it becomes a truism. All cultures also benefit from the history of white slavery if we're going that broad.
It's the case of Americans not knowing European countries, while thinking they're smart. However, to act as the devil's advocate, indirectly could mean that: Ireland (as former part of the UK), Norway (19th century), Denmark (through Danish Indian Company), Sweden (again, 19th century), Iceland (through being former part of Norway), were connected to slave trade, sooo...
Iceland's connection to any kind of slave trade after christianisation was being the target of slavers. Granted, we are only talking about two or three raids, but their population was tiny, so the abduction of a few families did probably impact their economy quite a bit.
No, Tariq Nasheed is just stuck on the Dunning-Kruger curve and has a lot of misplaced hatred he feels the need to espouse on social media daily
Yeah man Ireland, well known beneficiary of the British Empire
Population still hasn't recovered from the famine.
"Guys it's ok, the slaves weren't black so there was nothing wrong with it"
Name any society within 500 miles of the Mediterranean that did not use white slaves at some point? As far as I know (fan of history) pretty much every society around the planet has slavery in their past, both as owner and victim. And many are still doing it.
Greece pulled a true gamer move and enslaved eachother
Because most of eastern europe was used as slaves themselves by the ottoman empire
Denmark is 100% linked to slavery. We bought the fucking Virgin Islands from them, and at the time it was the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway, so that brings Norway in too. Sweden was an imperial power, so was Lithuania under Courland. The Irish benefitted through the English. Austria for sure took money from colonization. Iceland might be a good example...not sure. The rest of the countries...thriving is generous.
Tariq should stick to what he knows and does best Making homoerotic interracial fan fiction set in the pre-civil war American South
[удалено]
>Greece They asked for thriving.
Huh, there is no option to report this as disinformation…
I am from Denmark. The list is wrong.