• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No Muslims as president, says Ben Carson

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
i believe there is no such thing as unacceptable unless one can clearly show it to be unacceptable or one has lived-though something and developed a strong dislike due to the wrong emotional experiences. otherwise it is acceptable.
:facepalm:
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
i think that blacks were valuable as well, like slaves in ancient rome. they were lost during sea transport because of the bad conditions of trying to transport many many people. and i dont even know how credible these sources are. how did they arrive at this historical fact?

Your opinion of the value of black Americans isn't what we are talking about. This whole conversation started because of your claim that Islam is an immigrant religion to the Americas and it's a relatively new concept. That is is Historically, factually wrong.

But to keep with the concept of value and slavery, it is was not the ideal world that you seem to think it was.

b07e9cc9bb503ac3ebb7b5c6356682e1.jpg

It simply was not (at all) the egalitarian value system that you're claiming...

People were offered no personal freedoms other than what the land owner decided to provide. The landowner was god, and there was nothing that the enslaved people could do about it. This negative view of the other human beings somehow being lesser continued long after Emancipation, through to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s-60s and persists still to this day. Explain to me how this social concept of dark skin somehow meaning "lesser" could develop in a world where black slaves were viewed as valuable....

You can't do it.

Slaves did have value at the time, and was entirely dependent on how much work and profit they could bring to their owners - they had no value other than that.
Some of them were treated quite fairly, and there are instances of slave owners who preferred to have themselves buried along their slaves in family cemeteries. But those stories are few and far between when compared to the reality of slavery in America.
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
Your opinion of the value of black Americans isn't what we are talking about. This whole conversation started because of your claim that Islam is an immigrant religion to the Americas and it's a relatively new concept. That is is Historically, factually wrong.

But to keep with the concept of value and slavery, it is was not the ideal world that you seem to think it was.

b07e9cc9bb503ac3ebb7b5c6356682e1.jpg

It simply was not (at all) the egalitarian value system that you're claiming...

People were offered no personal freedoms other than what the land owner decided to provide. The landowner was god, and there was nothing that the enslaved people could do about it. This negative view of the other human beings somehow being lesser continued long after Emancipation, through to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s-60s and persists still to this day. Explain to me how this social concept of dark skin somehow meaning "lesser" could develop in a world where black slaves were viewed as valuable....

You can't do it.

Slaves did have value at the time, and was entirely dependent on how much work and profit they could bring to their owners - they had no value other than that.
Some of them were treated quite fairly, and there are instances of slave owners who preferred to have themselves buried along their slaves in family cemeteries. But those stories are few and far between when compared to the reality of slavery in America.
Thats a strong picture but how certain can we be it depicts a slave who was abused by his master instead of the slave having some sort of skin disease or perhaps he was tortured to death for a crime. the ancient persians flayed their victims alive and hung their skin on the city walls for everyone to see. how disturbing would that picture be? alot more than the one you posted.

Slaves were always regarded as inferior because they were subservient to their owners. Just as women were regarded inferior because they were subservient to men. Just as dogs are regarded inferior because they are subservient. infact dog is an insult even though these animals are very friendly and great hunters. but because of their subservient nature the animal became an insult.

A slave had value of money and if you mistreat one youre basically, if you want to compare it to modern times, are burning down your house and smashing in the windows. who would do this? unless youre mentally ill or derive some sort of pleasure from torturing people, nobody.

And as i pointed out previously the black slaves couldnt have been muslim because they didnt demand prayer times or to fast during ramadan. and there are no sources tell us about such incidents.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Thats a strong picture but how certain can we be it depicts a slave who was abused by his master instead of the slave having some sort of skin disease or perhaps he was tortured to death for a crime. the ancient persians flayed their victims alive and hung their skin on the city walls for everyone to see. how disturbing would that picture be? alot more than the one you posted.

Slaves were always regarded as inferior because they were subservient to their owners. Just as women were regarded inferior because they were subservient to men. Just as dogs are regarded inferior because they are subservient. infact dog is an insult even though these animals are very friendly and great hunters. but because of their subservient nature the animal became an insult.

A slave had value of money and if you mistreat one youre basically, if you want to compare it to modern times, are burning down your house and smashing in the windows. who would do this? unless youre mentally ill or derive some sort of pleasure from torturing people, nobody.

And as i pointed out previously the black slaves couldnt have been muslim because they didnt demand prayer times or to fast during ramadan. and there are no sources tell us about such incidents.
I think you would benefit greatly from a World History 101 course.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Thats a strong picture but how certain can we be it depicts a slave who was abused by his master instead of the slave having some sort of skin disease or perhaps he was tortured to death for a crime.

1872079_2_l.jpg


blake2.jpg


index.php

This is a slave branding iron... You'r argument is invalid.

A slave had value of money and if you mistreat one youre basically, if you want to compare it to modern times, are burning down your house and smashing in the windows. who would do this? unless youre mentally ill or derive some sort of pleasure from torturing people, nobody.

Did you type that last line with a straight face?

Slaves were always regarded as inferior because they were subservient to their owners. Just as women were regarded inferior because they were subservient to men. Just as dogs are regarded inferior because they are subservient. infact dog is an insult even though these animals are very friendly and great hunters. but because of their subservient nature the animal became an insult.
Please read your posts before clicking that post button. You just equated slaves and women to dogs.

You admit that there were regarded as inferior yet fail to see how that would diminish their value and justify poor treatment? Why?

And as i pointed out previously the black slaves couldnt have been muslim because they didnt demand prayer times or to fast during ramadan. and there are no sources tell us about such incidents.

Please tell me what good they're demands would have done in a world where they had no rights afforded to them at all?
Would you also argue that salves weren't Christian because they didn't demand to abstain from work on the Sabbath?
Would you also argue that salved weren't practicing other pagan African religions because they didn't to be treated by a witch doctor when they got sick?

You really need to rethink your position on this...
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
http://cisupa.proquest.com/ksc_assets/catalog/100539.pdf

This link contains over 200 pages worth of slave ship records.
Please remember that their cargo holds were full of human beings defecating all over each other because there was no room and they were chained to the floor, and they were starving to death.
What would be interesting to discover is: How many slaves were bought (ordered) and how many slaves arrived(delivery note). If 100 were ordered and 75 arrived as per delivery note then one could argue that 25% were lost due to horrible conditions.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
What would be interesting to discover is: How many slaves were bought (ordered) and how many slaves arrived(delivery note). If 100 were ordered and 75 arrived as per delivery note then one could argue that 25% were lost due to horrible conditions.
This is not out of the ordinary, what is your point?
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
can you direct me to such legit old documents?
Not a primary source, but it will get you started. From the source:

On a typical voyage to America, about 10-15 percent of the Africans died; the longer the voyage lasted, the higher the death rate. Estimates vary, but up to 2 million died.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
No i would consider it an honor that somebody made me valuable. Isnt that so clear to you?
I really doubt you would think that. Some one takes you from your life, your family, and your home, they put a price tag on you, someone says you are worth only a monetary value, and you have no rights, at all, and you are considered someone's property. Your only "value" would be as an expendable source of free labor.
No i believe that slave should be aquired through war, perhaps, and serve as some sort of maids, you know those french maids that clean your rooms? something like that. apart from that i dont think i would quilify under those conditions and i would pretty much fight to death or be tortured to death rather than serve somebody.
Why do you condone slavery? People are not property.
I have a hard time believing that there are so many people entertaining posts coming from a user who is indirectly advocating for slavery.
It's not indirectly, but directly with a statement "slaves should be acquired..."
Sickening, if you ask me.
Slaves were always regarded as inferior because they were subservient to their owners.
It was widely believed that "the negro" genetically inferior, that were destined for servitude, and that was all they could amount to in life.
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
Not a primary source, but it will get you started. From the source:
i can make a claim that 60 million of jew died during the holocaust. but my claim has absolutely no historical value at all.

The website you gave didnt give any old documents as source. instead modern books and even poor at that (only 2 sources) for an entire page.
 
Last edited:

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
i can make a claim that 60 million of jew died during the holocaust. but my claim has absolutely no historical value at all.
Correct, that is why we have -dun dun DAAAA- historic sources! :D You know, those things you have yet to use in any discussion, ever? ;)
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
Correct, that is why we have -dun dun DAAAA- historic sources! :D You know, those things you have yet to use in any discussion, ever? ;)
Okay ask me for any reference you want to hear. Ill do my best to give it to you. I swear by Zeus that Jared Taylor made a video where he had sources for slaves WANTING to serve their master. But it seems it got deleted and im unaware of any other ways i could give this specific information in a legit manner.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Okay ask me for any reference you want to hear. Ill do my best to give it to you. I swear by Zeus that Jared Taylor made a video where he had sources for slaves WANTING to serve their master. But it seems it got deleted and im unaware of any other ways i could give this specific information in a legit manner.
You point is? It's not exactly unheard of for someone who has been captured to develop an emotional relation with their captor, even to the point of sympathizing with them and even defending them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly eight percent of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
You point is? It's not exactly unheard of for someone who has been captured to develop an emotional relation with their captor, even to the point of sympathizing with them and even defending them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly eight percent of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat.[5]
This prove that slaves werent abused and that they probably were listend to if they had wishes such as a time for prayer or a time to fast during ramadan.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Okay ask me for any reference you want to hear. Ill do my best to give it to you. I swear by Zeus that Jared Taylor made a video where he had sources for slaves WANTING to serve their master. But it seems it got deleted and im unaware of any other ways i could give this specific information in a legit manner.
I am a historian by trade, let me clue you in on a little something. In this industry (what a silly term for it, but anyway), if your argument is reliant on one, single source, your argument is terrible and might as well have no ground to stand on. That said, if you only have one source, it was probably a weak argument to begin with.
 
Top