Why did black africa decline?

[AOE]

Because, as S.A.T.A has pointed out, different people have different concepts of good and evil. Human sacrifice may seem evil and barbaric to you and me, but it was not to many other people in the world. In fact, it was considered an honor to be sacrificed. No one in the Aztec or Mayan civilizations viewed it as "evil", but the Spanish did, and they used their prejudiced view of Mayan culture as a justification for genocide and mass (forced) conversion.

We should not make the same mistake, in the modern era, of being close-minded in our view of other cultures. We have no right to force our judgement of "right" and "wrong" on other people.

I'm not going to be put in a position where I defend the genocide of native Americans. I just want to get that out there before we start talking about the more in depth points.

As for what you said here; so what you're saying is that everything is relevant, that all cultures are on equal footing, regardless of their activities? I don't buy that argument. Democracy as a political system is not on equal footing with barbarism, tribalism, fascism, communism, monarchism, or theocratic states.

You were comparing unlike things, so you didn't have a point in the first place.

Human sacrifice is an ordained ritual in many Mesoamerican religions, just as praying five times a day is an ordained ritual in Islam. You cannot change this.

Ironically here you are comparing even more unlike things. I was only comparing the two because I consider murdering people for religious or tyrannical reasons to be wrong.

However, killing people in the name of Jihad is not an ordained part of Islam, nor is totalitarianism and the use of secret police an ordained part of Communism. No where in any Islamic or Communist text does it justify this. In fact, both movements preached the exact opposite when they began. Both jihadism and Stalinist totalitarianism can thus be labelled as "extremist" because they diverged from their original movements to become rather different and incongruent things.

You would be surprised. Jihad means struggle, and can involve anything from a personal struggle with another person, to outright war against another group of people for cultural/religious/political reasons. Some of this jihad included the extermination and slavery of millions of Indians over 1000 years. There are passages in the quran that are violent in nature, wholly intended to subjugate other people from other cultures or viewpoints. Communism wasn't originally like that because the original concepts it preached were borrowed from socialism and the labor movement, its own ideas that it attached became totalitarian as it started reaching beyond economics into the socio-political arena, stating that people who massed wealth deserved to have their assets seized to be equally distributed; regardless of how they gained that wealth (often through hard work), and that human rights are nothing but an obstacle to the state.

Human sacrifice, on the other hand, cannot be labelled as "extremist" because it part of the mainstream religion of Mesoamericans. That is the difference.

So what if you were a Meso-American who didn't want to partake in such acts, and wanted to escape? If they disagreed with it, does that make them prejudicial and racist?

And that is why democracy, in itself, is not the answer. In order for democracy to succeed, other things need to be present, such as a strong legal system, a well-established system of education, and a relative degree of socioeconomic equality. Without things like these a democracy is doomed to fail.

All of these points are already innate within democracy, or through capitalism and the labor movement. It has proven itself as the best system of government. If you disagree then go live in a state that doesn't have those sorts of values; like North Korea.

The U.S. Government passed laws that specifically targetted minorities throughout its history. These laws were passed through the "democratic process".

Democracy isn't perfect, there are instances where people can go through loopholes or other means to put something in place that is prejudicial. It is still a far better system than communism, fascism, or theocracy where such acts are easier to create and carry out; as they are inherent within the system.

Slaves are not paid, protected under the law, or guaranteed their freedom after a certain period of time. Indentured servants are, and that is the difference.

Guaranteeing freedom is not an aspect of not being a slave, in which case the Romans would have never had slaves, but unpaid laborers. Muslim slaves would not be considered the same as well if all they had to do was convert and they would no longer be slaves. There were protections and laws put in place by the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Christians, Muslims, etc... that does not mean they aren't slaves; the rules between each culture were just different.

The concept of "human property" is a foreign concept in India. You will find no such reference of 'slaves' in Indian literature. Even the labourers on the bottom end of the caste system were guaranteed their right to freedom and were protected by law. It is ironic that people criticize the caste system when it was probably the freest system of ancient times; India was one of the few societies where outright slavery did not exist. It was only until much later that the caste system became oppressive and limited social progress.

I have heard similar arguments from muslims about their slavery system and I don't buy it. It is still a system of slavery and racism, you are just placing it above other systems as if that somehow doesn't make it slavery at all. You are highlighting the evils of other cultures but not those of your own. You keep shifting the goal posts saying how your cultures treatment of slaves were better yet somehow all cultures are to be treated equally. Make up your mind. If all cultures are equal, then according to your logic; slavery isn't a problem at all because it was a practice of some European states, therefore you criticizing it as an outsider makes you racist.

Why do you need to abolish something that doesn't exist? The concept of "abolition" requires the concept of "slavery".

It does not say outright that slavery is banned, period. As I said; it gives rules and regulations, and they vary depending on the persons status in the caste system. Slavery is still slavery, you have just euphemized it with a different name.

There were only two instances in history when an Indian state captured foreign territory. The first was in the 4th century B.C.E, when the Mauryans conquered present-day Afghanistan from the Seleucid Greeks. The second was in the 11th century C.E., when the Chola Empire conquered Indonesia and Malaysia. In both cases, there is no evidence that Indian rulers enslaved the peoples of those regions.

In fact, there are Greek sources that specifically state that slavery was not practiced by the Indians, which I have already posted.

In reality there are contradicting accounts to whether or not slavery occurred, and citing one Greek source is not enough research as they can only speak for a small period of Indian history in Afghanistan; it does not represent the overall history. Sure if a slave was an Arya he could retain his original post and status in society, but not if he was at the bottom of the caste. An Arya could also sell himself into slavery, but lower caste slaves also included prisoners of war, or people who were serving judicial sentences. What about the Lekhapaddhati which mentions instances of slaves being taken as captives during war and other means?

There is a reason why this is.

No other people in the history of the world depopulated an entire hemisphere, and then enslaved countless millions of people from another continent in the other hemisphere and sent them over to the depopulated hemisphere. It was a demographic shift of unprecendented proportions, and unprecedented suffering. That is why the Europeans are blamed more than anyone else, which they deserve to be.

Yet again poor reasoning. Muslims did the same in Africa and you do not see people blaming a large portion of African poverty and displacement on them. Why is that the Berbers, Nubians, Egyptians, and other north/east African racial groups vanished over the last 1000 years? The Ottomans exterminated millions of people in the Balkans and in Asia Minor during their rise and fall, and yet why aren't they given a similar mention? What about the millions of Europeans who were enslaved during the Middle Ages and Renaissance? Why is it you say all cultures are equal yet you dismiss evidence of Indias or other cultures slavery, and yet highlight that of European christians? That is not a fair analysis of history.

Yes the European slave system was among the worst, colonialism has ended a century ago and it is time to move on. Highlighting the past is pointless if you do not make changes in the present; then you are just as responsible for the continuation of it as the past perpetrators.

 

[civfanatic]

As for what you said here; so what you're saying is that everything is relevant, that all cultures are on equal footing, regardless of their activities?

Yes.

I don't buy that argument. Democracy as a political system is not on equal footing with barbarism, tribalism, fascism, communism, monarchism, or theocratic states.

Do you understand the difference between a 'culture' and 'political system'? They are two very different things, so I don't understand why you are comparing them?

Ironically here you are comparing even more unlike things. I was only comparing the two because I consider murdering people for religious or tyrannical reasons to be wrong.

I am comparing the two things that you yourself brought up.

You would be surprised. Jihad means struggle, and can involve anything from a personal struggle with another person, to outright war against another group of people for cultural/religious/political reasons. Some of this jihad included the extermination and slavery of millions of Indians over 1000 years. There are passages in the quran that are violent in nature, wholly intended to subjugate other people from other cultures or viewpoints. Communism wasn't originally like that because the original concepts it preached were borrowed from socialism and the labor movement, its own ideas that it attached became totalitarian as it started reaching beyond economics into the socio-political arena, stating that people who massed wealth deserved to have their assets seized to be equally distributed; regardless of how they gained that wealth (often through hard work), and that human rights are nothing but an obstacle to the state.

I'm not going to defend Islamic crimes, if that's what you want me to do. But it's a fact that that the Koran forbade the arbitrary killing of civilians in times of war, or the wanton destruction of property. What fundamentalists have done in the name of Islam cannot be blamed on the religion itself, and I firmly believe that because there are 150 million Indian Muslims who live peacefully in this country and are not fanatics in any sense of the word.

So what if you were a Meso-American who didn't want to partake in such acts, and wanted to escape? If they disagreed with it, does that make them prejudicial and racist?

Then I would have worked to end the practice and reform my culture, just as countless other individuals have done in the past. Foreign cultures, however, have no right to intervene and force their version of morality on them. Any change that happens must happen from within the culture itself.

All of these points are already innate within democracy, or through capitalism and the labor movement.

Obviously not, because America, the "great beacon of freedom and equality", had slavery for 100 years. Many of America's founding fathers were slaveowners themselves. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the words "All men are created equal", was a slaveowner. Can you say "hypocrite"?

Until just 40 years ago, blacks in America were not allowed to socially mingle with whites, or use the same public facilities as whites, or recieve the same education as whites. Is this how the "world's beacon of freedom and democracy" treats its minorities? By this time, democracy had existed in America for two centuries, so these values are obviously not "innate" in a democracy.

It has proven itself as the best system of government. If you disagree then go live in a state that doesn't have those sorts of values; like North Korea.

Should anyone who disagrees with you go to North Korea? Stalin would have approved; he sent anyone who disagreed with him to the Gulags.

Democracy isn't perfect, there are instances where people can go through loopholes or other means to put something in place that is prejudicial. It is still a far better system than communism, fascism, or theocracy where such acts are easier to create and carry out; as they are inherent within the system.

It doesn't matter how perfect a system is in theory. If the people under the system are corrupt, then the system itself will also be corrupt.

American democracy was simply a reflection of the American people, just as all democracies are. The American people, as a whole, were racist and viewed non-Anglo Saxons as inferior human beings. This was reflected in the laws that they passed.

Guaranteeing freedom is not an aspect of not being a slave, in which case the Romans would have never had slaves, but unpaid laborers. Muslim slaves would not be considered the same as well if all they had to do was convert and they would no longer be slaves. There were protections and laws put in place by the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Christians, Muslims, etc... that does not mean they aren't slaves; the rules between each culture were just different.

In order for this discussion to have some sanity, you need to provide me with your definition of "slave".

The Indian indentured servants were "guaranteed freedom" because they voluntarily became indentured servants. They would only work under bondage for a certain period of time that they set, and then they would be freed as per their contract. The contract was enforced by the Government and the failure of the employer to honor the contract led to fines and other punishments.

If all cultures are equal, then according to your logic; slavery isn't a problem at all because it was a practice of some European states, therefore you criticizing it as an outsider makes you racist.

If the Europeans wanted to enslave themselves, as they did for most of their history, good for them. I could care less.

I only object to what Europeans did to other cultures, and then claim to be angels and "leaders of social progress".

It does not say outright that slavery is banned, period.

The 'slavery' depicted in Indian literature is not slavery at all, because the 'slaves' were paid contract labourers and indentured servants. This is not what a slave is.

The Government could not ban the use of these labourers and servants because it was a way of life for many foreigners living on the fringes of India. But that is irrelevant since those people were not considered 'slaves' in the first place.

In reality there are contradicting accounts to whether or not slavery occurred, and citing one Greek source is not enough research as they can only speak for a small period of Indian history in Afghanistan; it does not represent the overall history.

There are other sources as well.

The Chinese monk Fa Xian travelled to India in the 5th century, and noted the lack of things like slavery and capital punishment, which he recorded in his book Records of the Buddhist Kingdoms.

The Periplus Maris Erythraei, an account of Indo-Roman trade, notes that Indian marketplaces did not trade in slaves, as the marketplaces of Rome and Greece did.

Sure if a slave was an Arya he could retain his original post and status in society, but not if he was at the bottom of the caste. An Arya could also sell himself into slavery, but lower caste slaves also included prisoners of war, or people who were serving judicial sentences. What about the Lekhapaddhati which mentions instances of slaves being taken as captives during war and other means?

LOL Lekhapaddhati? Do you even know what that is?

To be honest, I was very surprised when you first mentioned the Arthashastra in one of your previous posts, because it is a rather obscure text that very few Westerners know about. But after doing a quick search, I found the Wiki article "Slavery in India", and I realized that I had found your "source". I presume you also pulled the Lekhapaddhati from that article.

I strongly suggest that you actually read about India's history and culture instead of forming your opinion based on bits and pieces of Wikipedia articles.

As I have stated earlier, there were some cases of slaves in India, in the true sense of the world. But these were the exception rather than the rule, compared to Europe where it was the rule rather than the exception. India did not experience wide-scale slavery comparable to Europe until the Islamic invasions.

Also, I don't think you understand what an "Arya" is. An "Arya", as it is used in the Arthashastra and other texts, refers to any Indian, regardless of caste or status. The ancient name for India is "Aryavarsha", which literally means "Land of the Aryans", and the residents of the country are called "Aryas".

Yet again poor reasoning. Muslims did the same in Africa and you do not see people blaming a large portion of African poverty and displacement on them.

Are you kidding? The Muslims did nothing to Africa that was along the same lines as what the Europeans did. The Muslims did not exterminate the entire continent or repopulate it with people from another one. They did not even succed in converting the whole continent to Islam, only parts of it.

Again, I hate to defend Islamic crimes, but there is no use comparing them with European ones.

Why is that the Berbers, Nubians, Egyptians, and other north/east African racial groups vanished over the last 1000 years?

They didn't?

The Ottomans exterminated millions of people in the Balkans and in Asia Minor during their rise and fall, and yet why aren't they given a similar mention?

The scale of Ottoman imperialism in the Balkans is no where near the same scale as European imperalism. You are talking about a small part of Europe, I'm talking about the majority of the world.

What about the millions of Europeans who were enslaved during the Middle Ages and Renaissance?

By whom? Other European powers?

Why is it you say all cultures are equal yet you dismiss evidence of Indias or other cultures slavery, and yet highlight that of European christians? That is not a fair analysis of history.

Oh no, India has had its fair share of crimes. Read about the Kalinga War. But to compare European crimes against humanity with Indian crimes against is like comparing Hitler with Gandhi.

The people of India were usually content to remain in the subcontinent. We were not an expansionist nation in the past, nor are we today. We never colonized and raped countries on the other side of the Earth. Unlike the Europeans, who mainly exported misery and suffering all over the world, India preferred to export science, culture, and enlightenment.

 

[Shaitan]

Some successful black African empires.

Aksumite empire

Mali empire

Songhai Empire

African nations(and also Asian nations like India) today are going through what many European states went through after Roman colonization, getting back up on their feet. Yes, many nations in Africa and also India's situation today is pretty sh*t, but so was western Europe after the colonizers left(dark ages)..


It would be pretty crazy if in a 1000 years or so African nations become the colonizers of space, similar to what the Europeans did to much of the planet not to long ago.

 

[Shaitan]

No offence to my Indian friends, but dont act like Indians didn't inslave people like the Europeans. We did it to each other in the form of the caste system..Which I consider same as slavery and definitely racist..

 

[SHASH2K2]

No offence to my Indian friends, but dont act like Indians didn't inslave people like the Europeans. We did it to each other in the form of the caste system..

"We did it " ? First be sure of identity of your own before passing comments on others .

 

[Shaitan]

"We did it " ? First be sure of identity of your own before passing comments on others .

Indians did it to each other, happy?

 

[civfanatic]

Indians did it to each other, happy?

There's no use comparing the caste system with slavery. Even the bottom castes were guaranteed rights that slaves did not have, especially the right to the fruit of one's labour.

Also, the caste system was of vital importance to India, because it gave India a highly stable form of social organization. It was thanks to this highly stable and highly organized society that India was able to resist foreign invasions and foreign attempts to change Indian culture. It kept the Indian people together, in a sense. No foreign invaders had a comparable form of social organization, and could not match the sophistication of Indian culture; thus, they were assimilated.

Today, the caste system is outdated and is socially discriminatory. But historically, the caste system probably did more good to India than harm.

 

[Rage]

"We did it " ? First be sure of identity of your own before passing comments on others .

Arre woh Indian hai baba!

I wouldn't call the caste system a form of slavery. I'd call it a form of social stratification that imposed very harsh costs on those who didn't adhere.

In a sense, they were 'enslaved' to a profession, not to a master.

 

[Shaitan]

But historically, the caste system probably did more good to India than harm.

You really think so?

I think I rather be a slave then an untouchable to be honest btw..

 

[civfanatic]

I think I rather be a slave then an untouchable to be honest btw..

Good for you.

In a sense, they were 'enslaved' to a profession, not to a master.

In ancient times, this was not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Rage]

You really think so?

I think I rather be a slave then an untouchable to be honest btw..

Yeah, there were a lot worse excesses at the time.

The most stable societies were those that imposed the highest costs upon deviation. In an age of Enlightenment, that never works. But in an age of widespread illiteracy, a harsh social organization was probably the only way to guarantee stability. Cyrus' Persia was one of a few exceptions, and even that had higher levels of literacy than most. India, being a trading subcontinent, with undefined markets and limited mobility of labour <mostly due to warring states and language/linguistic barriers> a harsh imposed social stratification was the only way to guarantee a constant labour supply to all the various occupations needed; and to ensure that society functioned stably. In addition, the lack of an institutionalized system of vocational <other than scriptural> education was another major factor.

The fact of 'untouchableness' evolved subsequently; and came about because of their exposure to these 'base' professions. Under our laws and norms, we now know that is inhumane. But at the time, valid as it may be, it certainly was one of a few effective ways of organizing society.

 

[Shaitan]

Yeah, there were a lot worse excesses at the time.

The most stable societies were those that imposed the highest costs upon deviation. In an age of Enlightenment, that never works. But in an age of widespread illiteracy, a harsh social organization was probably the only way to guarantee stability. Cyrus' Persia was one of a few exceptions, and even that had higher levels of literacy than most. India, being a trading subcontinent, with undefined markets and limited mobility of labour <mostly due to warring states and language/linguistic barriers> a harsh imposed social stratification was the only way to guarantee a constant labour supply to all the various occupations needed; and to ensure that society functioned stably. In addition, the lack of an institutionalized system of vocational <other than scriptural> education was another major factor.

The fact of 'untouchableness' evolved subsequently; and came about because of their exposure to these 'base' professions. Under our laws and norms, we now know that is inhumane. But at the time, valid as it may be, it certainly was one of a few effective ways of organizing society.

Nice post rage.:clap:

 

[AOE]

Do you understand the difference between a 'culture' and 'political system'? They are two very different things, so I don't understand why you are comparing them?

The two are often intertwined, especially since both you and SATA have said that westerners would enslave or colonize other peoples, then remove them from that system as call that progress. Slavery is a part of a political system, and also culture of nearly every civilization in history.

I am comparing the two things that you yourself brought up.

When did I compare human sacrifice in Meso-America to muslims praying 5 times a day? No, I didn't.

I'm not going to defend Islamic crimes, if that's what you want me to do. But it's a fact that that the Koran forbade the arbitrary killing of civilians in times of war, or the wanton destruction of property. What fundamentalists have done in the name of Islam cannot be blamed on the religion itself, and I firmly believe that because there are 150 million Indian Muslims who live peacefully in this country and are not fanatics in any sense of the word.

I'm not asking you to defend islamic crimes, I was only making the statement I did before because people are quick to jump to conclusions and think that by criticizing that aspect, I must somehow be defending colonialism. You wont attribute the slavery and religious killings at the hands of muslims to islam, but you will attribute similar behavior by christians to christianity. This is not a fair view of history.

Then I would have worked to end the practice and reform my culture, just as countless other individuals have done in the past. Foreign cultures, however, have no right to intervene and force their version of morality on them. Any change that happens must happen from within the culture itself.

How can you if prior to the European arrival, there was no alternative culture to get the idea of democracy from? I'm not justifying the actions of the colonials, but there was no outside contact or culture for their to refer to. It's the same reason why most of Africa failed to compete against other civilizations.

Obviously not, because America, the "great beacon of freedom and equality", had slavery for 100 years. Many of America's founding fathers were slaveowners themselves. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the words "All men are created equal", was a slaveowner. Can you say "hypocrite"?

Until just 40 years ago, blacks in America were not allowed to socially mingle with whites, or use the same public facilities as whites, or recieve the same education as whites. Is this how the "world's beacon of freedom and democracy" treats its minorities? By this time, democracy had existed in America for two centuries, so these values are obviously not "innate" in a democracy.

So how is democracy as a political system responsible for these actions? Where does it state even in the most basic description of this system of government to treat others unequally? Yes Jefferson had slaves, it wasn't perfect. India today has the caste system, human trafficking, and debt bondage; so doesn't the same rule of hypocrisy apply here? No use blaming the British for everything if you still have practices that are in lock-step to their colonial rule.

Should anyone who disagrees with you go to North Korea? Stalin would have approved; he sent anyone who disagreed with him to the Gulags.

lol. What a drama queen. Did I threaten you or stick a gun to your head forcing you to relocate to another part of the world to do forced labor, or to be incarcerated? No. It's a simple suggestion; if you like to play the tu quo que/moral equivalence card between cultures, then what is to stop you from moving to a place like North Korea?

It doesn't matter how perfect a system is in theory. If the people under the system are corrupt, then the system itself will also be corrupt.

That is actually incorrect. The system itself at its most basic level has to support the idea of prejudice, totalitarianism, segregation, etc... for that to be true. In that case you can attribute any evil crime to any cultural/political/social/philosophical viewpoint, and the conclusion of that is that all ideas are relative and equal in measure, including that of fascism. As I said, I don't buy that kind of moral equivalence fallacy.

American democracy was simply a reflection of the American people, just as all democracies are. The American people, as a whole, were racist and viewed non-Anglo Saxons as inferior human beings. This was reflected in the laws that they passed.

Now we come to sweeping statements and generalizations. Not all Americans think that way, not even those founding fathers you seem to cite. Yet again I could say an equally cheap point by stating all Indians are racist because they still have the caste system, where people are treated unequally. So are you done with the ad hominems and strawman arguments yet?

In order for this discussion to have some sanity, you need to provide me with your definition of "slave".

Why don't you provide us with yours? I'm happy to use a dictionary definition of 'slave' or 'slavery', you on the other hand like to attribute standards that would make other systems of slavery look like unpaid labor; which is inaccurate.

The Indian indentured servants were "guaranteed freedom" because they voluntarily became indentured servants. They would only work under bondage for a certain period of time that they set, and then they would be freed as per their contract. The contract was enforced by the Government and the failure of the employer to honor the contract led to fines and other punishments.

Yet if you read the passage that you quoted from the book Arthashastra, it shows what you have just said here is the tip of the iceberg. People were bonded into slavery for life if they were already enslaved at a previous point in time and committed a crime, also if they try to flee to a 'foreign country', etc... which was my point earlier. The only thing you highlighted of note to counter my point in that passage was that they had to be payed and they couldn't be enslaved if they were offspring. Most of these rules and regulations applied to the Arya, not the untouchables or lower castes.

If the Europeans wanted to enslave themselves, as they did for most of their history, good for them. I could care less.

I only object to what Europeans did to other cultures, and then claim to be angels and "leaders of social progress".

You missed the point of what I said here, you are claiming all cultures are equal yet you denounce European slavery and white-wash your own. I'm saying all forms of slavery, regardless of how many rules and regulations there are; is immoral. Caste system or no caste system.

The 'slavery' depicted in Indian literature is not slavery at all, because the 'slaves' were paid contract labourers and indentured servants. This is not what a slave is.

So your saying that the major difference between the 'indentured servants' and slaves of other cultures is that they were payed, in short. Not much of an argument.

The Government could not ban the use of these labourers and servants because it was a way of life for many foreigners living on the fringes of India. But that is irrelevant since those people were not considered 'slaves' in the first place.

So the Americans and British who put in place opposition and reform to end slavery is dismissed by you, yet you make up excuses for that of Indian slavery? Yet again, double-standard.

The Chinese monk Fa Xian travelled to India in the 5th century, and noted the lack of things like slavery and capital punishment, which he recorded in his book Records of the Buddhist Kingdoms.

The Periplus Maris Erythraei, an account of Indo-Roman trade, notes that Indian marketplaces did not trade in slaves, as the marketplaces of Rome and Greece did.

Yet again, as I said earlier; these are among many quotes and sources that give contradictory accounts of slavery in the Indian subcontinent prior to islam and British colonialism.

LOL Lekhapaddhati? Do you even know what that is?

To be honest, I was very surprised when you first mentioned the Arthashastra in one of your previous posts, because it is a rather obscure text that very few Westerners know about. But after doing a quick search, I found the Wiki article "Slavery in India", and I realized that I had found your "source". I presume you also pulled the Lekhapaddhati from that article.

I strongly suggest that you actually read about India's history and culture instead of forming your opinion based on bits and pieces of Wikipedia articles.

I found it through Oxford University Press, and I found it a few years ago when I started looking into the islamic slave trade firstly through Sub-Saharan Africa, the Red Sea, and then under the Mughal Dynasties (and previous sultunates) in India; I found it when I started to look for texts that document pre-islamic history in India. It documents the period Indian history prior to the sultunates, and after the Mauryans but still within the middle-ages. Wikipedia articles always come up as first whenever you google almost any topic, but no I did not refer to that. If I have to refer to one of those articles, I'd rather use one of the sources at the bottom so long as they are reasonable.

As I have stated earlier, there were some cases of slaves in India, in the true sense of the world. But these were the exception rather than the rule, compared to Europe where it was the rule rather than the exception. India did not experience wide-scale slavery comparable to Europe until the Islamic invasions.

I know that, and I never claimed that either. I was claiming that there were instances in Indian history, and the caste system itself is still a remnant in India today of that old system.

Also, I don't think you understand what an "Arya" is. An "Arya", as it is used in the Arthashastra and other texts, refers to any Indian, regardless of caste or status. The ancient name for India is "Aryavarsha", which literally means "Land of the Aryans", and the residents of the country are called "Aryas".

I wasn't trying to muddle that distinction either between the word 'Arya' and an Indian person of that time, but it depends on which period of history we talk about. Originally Arya also referred to the Indo-Iranian groups that were common in northern India, who created the caste system.

Are you kidding? The Muslims did nothing to Africa that was along the same lines as what the Europeans did. The Muslims did not exterminate the entire continent or repopulate it with people from another one. They did not even succed in converting the whole continent to Islam, only parts of it.

Again, I hate to defend Islamic crimes, but there is no use comparing them with European ones.

They didn't?

I know you're not so relax, lol. Although there is validity in comparing them to that of the European ones. The following are some links to evidence of islamic slavery, one of which is a video just so the information can be presented without having to barrage you with endless amounts of articles and papers:


Islamic slavery is religious in nature.

Genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

The scale of Ottoman imperialism in the Balkans is no where near the same scale as European imperalism. You are talking about a small part of Europe, I'm talking about the majority of the world.

All forms of slavery and genocide are relevant to this discussion, and I said the Balkans and Asia Minor; which would include the Armenian genocide, as well as the killing and displacement of millions of Greeks, Kurds, and other minorities.

By whom? Other European powers?

You've never heard of the Barbary states?

Oh no, India has had its fair share of crimes. Read about the Kalinga War. But to compare European crimes against humanity with Indian crimes against is like comparing Hitler with Gandhi.

The people of India were usually content to remain in the subcontinent. We were not an expansionist nation in the past, nor are we today. We never colonized and raped countries on the other side of the Earth. Unlike the Europeans, who mainly exported misery and suffering all over the world, India preferred to export science, culture, and enlightenment.

You say Indians were never expansionist, yet you list an example of history where the Mauryans were very imperialistic and expansionist. Of course it's not to the extent of colonialism, but to dismiss it completely is ahistorical. I never claimed that all forms of slavery, genocide, or other evils were all equivalent; you were the one claiming all cultures are to be seen equally regardless, and I was pointing out that this is incorrect.

Anyway, I think this discussion is starting to become less productive. I agree with you that the Indian slavery or the caste system was not as bad as others, but it is still an instant of slavery or racism in itself. I would also agree with Rages last post.

 

[civfanatic]

The two are often intertwined, especially since both you and SATA have said that westerners would enslave or colonize other peoples, then remove them from that system as call that progress. Slavery is a part of a political system, and also culture of nearly every civilization in history.

The fact that Westerners enslaved and colonized so many people has much more to do with culture than politial systems.

After all, America (a democracy) and the old European monarchies both practiced slavery. In fact, many European monarchies, such as Britain and Russia, abolished slavery before America. Your argument is not supported by history.

When did I compare human sacrifice in Meso-America to muslims praying 5 times a day? No, I didn't.

You compared human sacrifice with Islam. I'm simply comparing human sacrifice with a more specific aspect of Islam.

I'm not asking you to defend islamic crimes, I was only making the statement I did before because people are quick to jump to conclusions and think that by criticizing that aspect, I must somehow be defending colonialism. You wont attribute the slavery and religious killings at the hands of muslims to islam, but you will attribute similar behavior by christians to christianity. This is not a fair view of history.

I consider the Christians who perpetrated these crimes, such as the Spanish conquistadors and the British colonialists, to be religious fundamentalists. Just as I consider Muslim rulers like Mahmud of Ghazni and Timur to be religious fundamentalists.

I have not actually read the Bible, but I doubt that the book encourages its followers to enslave and depopulate entire continents. It was simply another case of people using a set of beliefs to their personal advantage.

How can you if prior to the European arrival, there was no alternative culture to get the idea of democracy from? I'm not justifying the actions of the colonials, but there was no outside contact or culture for their to refer to. It's the same reason why most of Africa failed to compete against other civilizations.

Are the native peoples somehow intellectually inferior, that they cannot develop their own new ideas? From where did Europeans obtain the ideals of modern liberalism and democracy? Didn't European writers like John Locke develop such ideas in protest against existing conditions prevaling in Europe? Why can't the natives do the same, if they wanted?

The Europeans were not the only people capable of Enlightenment. Numerous other peoples have also had their own historical periods of Enlightenment.

So how is democracy as a political system responsible for these actions? Where does it state even in the most basic description of this system of government to treat others unequally? Yes Jefferson had slaves, it wasn't perfect. India today has the caste system, human trafficking, and debt bondage; so doesn't the same rule of hypocrisy apply here? No use blaming the British for everything if you still have practices that are in lock-step to their colonial rule.

Democracy is not responsible for anything. America's problems with inequality are due to its culture of white racial superiority, just as India's current problems are due to Indian culture, and not Indian democracy.

Once again, we see that culture and political system are two very different things.

Did I threaten you or stick a gun to your head forcing you to relocate to another part of the world to do forced labor, or to be incarcerated?

Lol, I was just joking. I knew you would take it very offensively.

That is actually incorrect. The system itself at its most basic level has to support the idea of prejudice, totalitarianism, segregation, etc... for that to be true. In that case you can attribute any evil crime to any cultural/political/social/philosophical viewpoint, and the conclusion of that is that all ideas are relative and equal in measure, including that of fascism. As I said, I don't buy that kind of moral equivalence fallacy.

There is a difference between theory and practice.

Democracy in theory is not the same as democracy in practice. This is due to many variables, of which one of the biggest is different cultural interpretations, which I have already shown.

I do not blame democracy for any of the problems in the world.

Now we come to sweeping statements and generalizations. Not all Americans think that way, not even those founding fathers you seem to cite. Yet again I could say an equally cheap point by stating all Indians are racist because they still have the caste system, where people are treated unequally. So are you done with the ad hominems and strawman arguments yet?

I know not all Americans were racist, but the majority were, including the founding fathers. Why else would deliberately racist laws like the Indian Removal Act and Chinese Exclusion Act be passed? These laws, and many others, were passed because they had the backing of a large portion of the American people.

If the majority of Americans were not racist, then America was not a democracy, because its actions would then represent the thoughts of a small racist minority and not the majority!

Why don't you provide us with yours? I'm happy to use a dictionary definition of 'slave' or 'slavery', you on the other hand like to attribute standards that would make other systems of slavery look like unpaid labor; which is inaccurate.

So your saying that the major difference between the 'indentured servants' and slaves of other cultures is that they were payed, in short. Not much of an argument.

Excellent. Let's just use dictionary.com's definition.

-noun
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave


You will see that the "slaves" in pre-Islamic India did not meet this definition because:
a) They had economic freedom, in the form of guaranteed wages. They were not economically subjected like true slaves, who recieved no income for their labour.
b) They were not considered "property" of the "owner", as they had a consensual contract which defined the conditions and duration of their labour.
c) Their choice to become "enslaved" was voluntary, and was not dependent on the owner/employer.

If you still think that these people are "slaves", then please provide at least one other example outside India where "slaves" met the above conditions.

You missed the point of what I said here, you are claiming all cultures are equal yet you denounce European slavery and white-wash your own. I'm saying all forms of slavery, regardless of how many rules and regulations there are; is immoral. Caste system or no caste system.

So the Americans and British who put in place opposition and reform to end slavery is dismissed by you, yet you make up excuses for that of Indian slavery? Yet again, double-standard.

If you look back in the thread, you will see that I started this argument because another poster claimed that the Europeans led the world in the abolition of slavery and was the center of Enlightened thinking. I objected to this because India had made considerable social progress on a variety of issues and was very socially enlightened long before Europe, and this is supported by numerous sources, including European ones.

I myself have stated that there were rare instances of true slaves in India prior to the Islamic invasions, but these were the exceptions to the rule.

As a general rule, slavery was almost nonexistent in ancient India compared to most other societies, including Europe.

I found it through Oxford University Press, and I found it a few years ago when I started looking into the islamic slave trade firstly through Sub-Saharan Africa, the Red Sea, and then under the Mughal Dynasties (and previous sultunates) in India; I found it when I started to look for texts that document pre-islamic history in India. It documents the period Indian history prior to the sultunates, and after the Mauryans but still within the middle-ages. Wikipedia articles always come up as first whenever you google almost any topic, but no I did not refer to that. If I have to refer to one of those articles, I'd rather use one of the sources at the bottom so long as they are reasonable.

Lol, ok.

Can you cite a specific passage from the Lekhapaddhati, as I have done with the Arthashastra, on the topic of slavery in India? For the purpose of critique.

I wasn't trying to muddle that distinction either between the word 'Arya' and an Indian person of that time, but it depends on which period of history we talk about.

From the Vedic Age to the Late Classic Age (that is, from roughly 1000 B.C.E to 1000 C.E.), the term "Arya" was used in this manner. After the Medieval Islamic invasions, the term fell out of use, and other demonyms like "Hindustani" and "Bharati" became common. Today, the term "Arya" is still used, but mainly as a term of respect for the elderly.

I know you're not so relax, lol. Although there is validity in comparing them to that of the European ones. The following are some links to evidence of islamic slavery, one of which is a video just so the information can be presented without having to barrage you with endless amounts of articles and papers:


Islamic slavery is religious in nature.

Genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

I never argued that Muslims didn't engage in slavery in Africa, just that it was not comparable with what the Europeans did in Africa or elsewhere.

You say Indians were never expansionist, yet you list an example of history where the Mauryans were very imperialistic and expansionist. Of course it's not to the extent of colonialism, but to dismiss it completely is ahistorical.

Of India's only two foreign conquests in history, there is no evidence that either conquest led to mass slavery of the people there, much less genocide. The same cannot be said for Europeans, Muslims, or other historically expansionist peoples.

In fact, the Mauryan conquest of Afghanistan liberated the people there from Greek rule, and brought a high degree of civilization to the country. Until the Muslim invasions, Afghanistan was a heart of commerce and culture, as testified by the intricate Buddhist monuments in the country. I am glad that India played a part in ensuring the only period of Afghanistan's long and troubled history where its people were prosperous and culturally refined.

I never claimed that all forms of slavery, genocide, or other evils were all equivalent; you were the one claiming all cultures are to be seen equally regardless, and I was pointing out that this is incorrect.

Please do not misrepresent my words. I said that all cultures have the right to live as they wish. They do not have the right to oppress others.

 

[AOE]

The fact that Westerners enslaved and colonized so many people has much more to do with culture than politial systems.

So what aspect of culture is it attributed to then? Is 'colonialism' a form of culture or politics? Racism is historically both political and cultural, one only needs to look at fascism as an example of the former.

After all, America (a democracy) and the old European monarchies both practiced slavery. In fact, many European monarchies, such as Britain and Russia, abolished slavery before America. Your argument is not supported by history.

Since when did I say America was the first or only country? I also mentioned Britain, so you are misrepresenting what I am saying. Here's a quote from one of my first posts in this thread:

It is true though that the first major attempt to abolish slavery was during the age of enlightenment by the Europeans and Americans.

Europeans would also include Russians, if that needs to be clarified.

You compared human sacrifice with Islam. I'm simply comparing human sacrifice with a more specific aspect of Islam.

I compare killing in the name of religion across different faiths, and I denounce all of them. You brought up the praying 5 times a day out of context, not me.

I consider the Christians who perpetrated these crimes, such as the Spanish conquistadors and the British colonialists, to be religious fundamentalists. Just as I consider Muslim rulers like Mahmud of Ghazni and Timur to be religious fundamentalists.

So according to you in the other thread titled a long the lines of Britain being responsible for many problems in the world, you say that Christianity is responsible for numerous crimes including colonialism in the Americas. What about Islams role in North and East Africa? You are yet again using a double-standard.

I have not actually read the Bible, but I doubt that the book encourages its followers to enslave and depopulate entire continents. It was simply another case of people using a set of beliefs to their personal advantage.

No, but you sang a different tune in another thread.

Are the native peoples somehow intellectually inferior, that they cannot develop their own new ideas? From where did Europeans obtain the ideals of modern liberalism and democracy? Didn't European writers like John Locke develop such ideas in protest against existing conditions prevaling in Europe? Why can't the natives do the same, if they wanted?

The Europeans were not the only people capable of Enlightenment. Numerous other peoples have also had their own historical periods of Enlightenment.

Did I say or even imply that people who could not compete with the Europeans are inferior somehow? Most of Africa was isolated for thousands of years, as it did not have contact with the rest of the developing world, which would help to explain why they were left behind. If the natives of any given country you wish to name wanted to develop democracy-like systems, then they should have rather than wallow in tribalism for thousands of years.

Many writers did develop liberalism and aspects of democracy in modern times from counter-cultural writers like John Locke, yes, but it was also developed in contrast to Roman and Greek politics from antiquity. Christianity, colonialism, or similar ideas are not unique to Europe. Christianity was developed in the Middle-East, and colonialism is a system that has been implemented, practiced, and used by most cultures and civilizations to varying degrees at different time periods. If Christianity is a part of European culture despite its violent introduction, then the same logic should apply that Islam and its violent history is synonymous with Indian culture as it arrived through similar means.

Democracy is not responsible for anything. America's problems with inequality are due to its culture of white racial superiority, just as India's current problems are due to Indian culture, and not Indian democracy.

Once again, we see that culture and political system are two very different things.

You mean Indians current problem of inequality is partially due to Indias racist caste system. We are in agreement.

Lol, I was just joking. I knew you would take it very offensively.

lol, or you didn't pick up on the hyperbole.

There is a difference between theory and practice.

Democracy in theory is not the same as democracy in practice. This is due to many variables, of which one of the biggest is different cultural interpretations, which I have already shown.

I do not blame democracy for any of the problems in the world.

Agreed. Variability is a problem with all systems, but democracy tends to better deal with it than others.

I know not all Americans were racist, but the majority were, including the founding fathers. Why else would deliberately racist laws like the Indian Removal Act and Chinese Exclusion Act be passed? These laws, and many others, were passed because they had the backing of a large portion of the American people.

If the majority of Americans were not racist, then America was not a democracy, because its actions would then represent the thoughts of a small racist minority and not the majority!

At the time yes, but racism and xenophobia was something still very common in every part of the world at the time. Nobodies history is perfect, and likewise can still be said of India for even having the caste system in the first place; which is still a problem to this very day. Why talk about European or American racism when you give little mention to your own countries racism?

Excellent. Let's just use dictionary.com's definition.

If you still think that these people are "slaves", then please provide at least one other example outside India where "slaves" met the above conditions.

Perhaps not technically slaves by dictionary sense, and yes I have said already that even if they were slaves as such; they would be treated better than most other cultures of other periods.

If you look back in the thread, you will see that I started this argument because another poster claimed that the Europeans led the world in the abolition of slavery and was the center of Enlightened thinking. I objected to this because India had made considerable social progress on a variety of issues and was very socially enlightened long before Europe, and this is supported by numerous sources, including European ones.

If they were talking about the Age of Enlightenment, then yes the poster is correct. There were many Europeans and Americans who did oppose the system and they gained more weight to their opposition during this period, and yes some of the people involved also had slaves as well. I'm sure there were many Indians who opposed the caste system who had their own 'indentured servants', 'untouchables', and 'dalits.'

I myself have stated that there were rare instances of true slaves in India prior to the Islamic invasions, but these were the exceptions to the rule.

Then perhaps we agree more on these issues than we realize.

As a general rule, slavery was almost nonexistent in ancient India compared to most other societies, including Europe.

Almost is the key word here. Yes it's true that it was not in comparison to European slavery, but that doesn't mean it wasn't present at all.

Lol, ok.

Can you cite a specific passage from the Lekhapaddhati, as I have done with the Arthashastra, on the topic of slavery in India? For the purpose of critique.

I don't own a translated copy of the book, nor can I find a PDF or link to a site that has it uploaded for free to copy passages from for critique or argument. Unless you do then I'm afraid this probably wont progress any further.

From the Vedic Age to the Late Classic Age (that is, from roughly 1000 B.C.E to 1000 C.E.), the term "Arya" was used in this manner. After the Medieval Islamic invasions, the term fell out of use, and other demonyms like "Hindustani" and "Bharati" became common. Today, the term "Arya" is still used, but mainly as a term of respect for the elderly.

Yet again even in this period it depends. The Mauryans were originally located in the north which is what the original term 'Arya' used to denote as Indian; basically a peaker of the Indo-Iranian language group.

I never argued that Muslims didn't engage in slavery in Africa, just that it was not comparable with what the Europeans did in Africa or elsewhere.

If you watched the video, and read the two links; you would realize that the two are comparable, indeed it is arguable that the muslim one was far worse in terms of treatment and the amount of slaves removed from their lands of origin.

Of India's only two foreign conquests in history, there is no evidence that either conquest led to mass slavery of the people there, much less genocide. The same cannot be said for Europeans, Muslims, or other historically expansionist peoples.

Mass slavery on the scale of Muslim or Christian slave trades? No.

In fact, the Mauryan conquest of Afghanistan liberated the people there from Greek rule, and brought a high degree of civilization to the country. Until the Muslim invasions, Afghanistan was a heart of commerce and culture, as testified by the intricate Buddhist monuments in the country. I am glad that India played a part in ensuring the only period of Afghanistan's long and troubled history where its people were prosperous and culturally refined.

Well... so far anyway... but I do agree with you in the context of ancient history, the middle-ages, colonial rule, etc...

Please do not misrepresent my words. I said that all cultures have the right to live as they wish. They do not have the right to oppress others.

I think there have been misunderstandings on both sides here, and I do apologize if I have made any. I'd rather wind this down as I think we are in agreement on many points.

 

[civfanatic]

I am tired, and its the weekend, so if it is okay with you I will end the discussion.

 

[Energon]

But what happened to these discontented civilizations that kept looking outside for reassurance against discontent,are they here and if they are are they content.The nature of discontent societies is that when they perchance happen to come across content societies they fail to recognize the nature of their contentment and then rationalize that this contentment is misplaced,hence you have the Europeans calling Africans,or should we say most non Europeans,as backward,disorganized or uncivilized.

This content vs discontent argument is based on entirely naive and romanticized notions. There is no such thing as a content civilization because unfortunately the greater guiding principle of biology does not allow it. What we're actually talking about here is the competition is between dynamic and stagnant civilizations and clearly we know who wins. And yes, they win because they are in many ways superior, more organized and sport more civilized homelands.

Have you even read the Arthashastra? The use of the word "slave" in the English translation of the book is a misnomer, because those "slaves" were paid and there were punishments for not giving a "slave" his proper income. A proper term would be "indentured servant"... Chapter XIII - Rules Regarding Slaves and Labourers:

We're arguing mere semantics here. My point is that subjugation of the weak/defeated (and yes, "indentured servants" very much fall into that category) has been a standard feature across the entire human spectrum. Again on account of the laws of nature.