3 ms·

> "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries." We are j

> "Portugal shouldn't overly acknowledge the slave trade, they barely kept any in the mainland while profiting off their sale and work for centuries." We are just going around and around in circles. Again and for the final time: The article and my problem with it, is NOT about Portugal's involvement in the slave trade. I totally admit Portugal was the big motivator of the slave TRADE, yet history let's it very clear that the Natives were the ENSLAVERS and already since at least 1500 years before and have continued to do it UNTIL THE PRESENT, long after the Europeans stopped that. The article IS about some WRONG idea there is some slave legacy in LISBON - when in fact there is basically none.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
Capitalizing random words doesn't make them true, nice dodge out of getting that source and ignoring how being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper. Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was.
- jbmorgado 9y ago
  > " being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper" This is just ridiculous. You still dodged why there is still slavery in Africa TODAY. Let me guess, still the Europeans fault I guess... Face it, Europeans traded the slaves, but the ones doing the enslaving were the Africans themselves that have been doing it for at least 2000 years now. I know, facts hurt your feelings when all you care is to play the SJW... though life. > "Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was." Let me guess, Portuguese and Spanish getting rid of the people oppressing and ENSLAVING them for centuries hurts your SJW feelings, cause Portuguese and Spanish are mostly white and as such they deserved to suffer? P.S.: BTW: "Historian John L. Vogt estimates that 10% of Lisbon’s population was black (BOTH ENSLAVED AND FREE) during the sixteenth century." It comes directly from the ARTICLE you so much love and defend, but I can't even expect you to be able to have that level of reading comprehension.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    >Face it, Europeans traded the slaves, but the ones doing the enslaving were the Africans themselves that have been doing it for at least 2000 years now. I know, facts hurt your feelings when all you care is to play the SJW... though life. As I've explained, Western Africa had slaves before the Europeans came in, but the scale and treatment was completely different. The Wikipedia article you keep linking says they had a spot at their master's table and sometimes more wives than the master. The creation of a large market for slaves changed things, and yes is still part of the reason it still goes on. A lot of people became entrenched in that field, and without a ton of better options are still in it only 130 years later. There are other causes, war in the Sudan and a lack of collateral for debt, but it's not some inate preference to slavery on Africa. Calling me a SJW for refusing to eat the nineteenth century European propaganda makes it really hard to take you seriously. >Let me guess, Portuguese and Spanish getting rid of the people oppressing and ENSLAVING them for centuries hurts your SJW feelings, cause Portuguese and Spanish are mostly white and as such they deserved to suffer? Funny how there were still so many Jews and Christians in An-Andalus that they needed saving from their terrible captors, and that one of the first acts the Crusaders did was to murder the Christian Bishop of Lisbon. BTW, trying to justify the Crusades is another sign you're eating the nineteenth century propaganda bullshit. The bullshit that led to Estado Nova and Portugal continuing to show only love for Africa. >BTW: "Historian John L. Vogt estimates that 10% of Lisbon’s population was black (BOTH ENSLAVED AND FREE) during the sixteenth century." It comes directly from the ARTICLE you so much love and defend, but I can't even expect you to be able to have that level of reading comprehension. Wikipedia has a similar claim, dropping the "enslaved and free" part. All of the references are in books I can't access, nice dodge out of proving your nonsense again though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Portugal
    - dang 9y ago
      Both of you are violating HN's guidelines by engaging in ideological flamewar and being personally uncivil. Please don't do this here.
  - dang 9y ago

boomboomsubban 9y ago

Capitalizing random words doesn't make them true, nice dodge out of getting that source and ignoring how being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper. Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was.

jbmorgado 9y ago
> " being the motivator still makes you the kidnapper" This is just ridiculous. You still dodged why there is still slavery in Africa TODAY. Let me guess, still the Europeans fault I guess... Face it, Europeans traded the slaves, but the ones doing the enslaving were the Africans themselves that have been doing it for at least 2000 years now. I know, facts hurt your feelings when all you care is to play the SJW... though life. > "Next you'll tell me about how glorious the reconquista was." Let me guess, Portuguese and Spanish getting rid of the people oppressing and ENSLAVING them for centuries hurts your SJW feelings, cause Portuguese and Spanish are mostly white and as such they deserved to suffer? P.S.: BTW: "Historian John L. Vogt estimates that 10% of Lisbon’s population was black (BOTH ENSLAVED AND FREE) during the sixteenth century." It comes directly from the ARTICLE you so much love and defend, but I can't even expect you to be able to have that level of reading comprehension.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  >Face it, Europeans traded the slaves, but the ones doing the enslaving were the Africans themselves that have been doing it for at least 2000 years now. I know, facts hurt your feelings when all you care is to play the SJW... though life. As I've explained, Western Africa had slaves before the Europeans came in, but the scale and treatment was completely different. The Wikipedia article you keep linking says they had a spot at their master's table and sometimes more wives than the master. The creation of a large market for slaves changed things, and yes is still part of the reason it still goes on. A lot of people became entrenched in that field, and without a ton of better options are still in it only 130 years later. There are other causes, war in the Sudan and a lack of collateral for debt, but it's not some inate preference to slavery on Africa. Calling me a SJW for refusing to eat the nineteenth century European propaganda makes it really hard to take you seriously. >Let me guess, Portuguese and Spanish getting rid of the people oppressing and ENSLAVING them for centuries hurts your SJW feelings, cause Portuguese and Spanish are mostly white and as such they deserved to suffer? Funny how there were still so many Jews and Christians in An-Andalus that they needed saving from their terrible captors, and that one of the first acts the Crusaders did was to murder the Christian Bishop of Lisbon. BTW, trying to justify the Crusades is another sign you're eating the nineteenth century propaganda bullshit. The bullshit that led to Estado Nova and Portugal continuing to show only love for Africa. >BTW: "Historian John L. Vogt estimates that 10% of Lisbon’s population was black (BOTH ENSLAVED AND FREE) during the sixteenth century." It comes directly from the ARTICLE you so much love and defend, but I can't even expect you to be able to have that level of reading comprehension. Wikipedia has a similar claim, dropping the "enslaved and free" part. All of the references are in books I can't access, nice dodge out of proving your nonsense again though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Portugal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Portugal
  - dang 9y ago
    Both of you are violating HN's guidelines by engaging in ideological flamewar and being personally uncivil. Please don't do this here.
- dang 9y ago