When we look at ancient to modern history we are essentially viewing it through the extensive bookkeeping and writing of English/ European origin. This means that the majority of documentation done at that time period was done by a white person. This is why we can’t determine certain things like white slave numbers taken by Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean, but have extensive listings and know every minute detail of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It is also why British colonization is so well known, but not the massive colonizing other ethnicities were known to have done. Is the British obsession with documentation the main reason White’s are so vilified today? If other societies kept such extensive records we could have rebuttal material from what we know were equal is not superior transgressions during the same time period.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
Evidence wouldn't matter.
There is significant enough evidence to suggest that any number of peoples have a checkered past, which really, should be common sense. From Aztec and Bantu genocide and expansionism, to Barbary and Mongolian slave trade. Slavery has been documented as far back as 3500BC in Mesopotamia, with the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi also representing the earliest evidence of "institutional" slavery. A common theme in history is: If they could, they likely did.
The reason why White people suffer this vilification is because they allow it. We allow the massive role Jewish Europeans played in the trans-Atlantic slave trade to be ignored, as we do the their often above per-capita slave ownership. We ignore or absolve Africans of their role in that slave trade. We ignore Islamic slave trade, as we do Islamic genocide. We largely ignore contemporary slave trade, despite the numbers surpassing historical slave trade with ease. Instead, we assume responsibility for every unfortunate event, every failure of failed peoples. We accept the historical revisionism and the illogical arguments that weaponize them towards the destruction of culture.
The only meaningful questions left are how we arrived at a point where we so willingly accept such deprecation, and what can be done about it. Safe to say though, it wasn't organic.