The topic of slavery has gotten a lot of attention over the past few years. Lot's of Narratives and resources out there.
I have to wonder why, in all of the discussion, the name Hamad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'id al Murjabi isn't more well known. It seems as though he played a pivotal role in the slave trade, yet I don't seem him mentioned very often.
I wonder why.
12 comments:
uh....I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest it's because he's not a white European.
You'd be correct. Which might explain why he's not prominently mentioned.
The left doesn't care about slavery. They care about being viewed as people who care about slavery.
Art,
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. They, as do most western people at this point, do find the concept of slavery to be wrong. Layer that with the fact that slavery is a broad brush with which to paint the US in a negative light, despite the fact that it was the west that abolished slavery, and the fact that slavery has been codified from the earliest written legal codes. Layer that with the fact that they need victims. Layer that with the fact that one of their anointed victim/oppressed groups is Muslims. Which makes their opposition to slavery problematic as Islam was at the heart of the slave trade for centuries.
But as you note, it seems to be much more about how those on the left appear than anything else.
At this point in American history, it's a rather moot issue. It's easy to say one opposes it when one couldn't easily get away with it. And by that I mean socially as well as legally, so long as no one a person knows would be willing to admit they'd favor it as well.
Still, with the way this administration and their minions in media and entertainment...and some elites in the private sector as well...treat the average American, are we really that far from being slaves ourselves, even if not an exact parallel to the antebellum blacks?
Maybe it is. I'd argue that it is relevant because as things stand in 2024, slavery is still a major issue across the globe. American, white liberals do a lot of whining about slavery from 150 years ago and how horrible it was, yet do very little to actually stop slavery as it exists today.
For example, I would be willing to bet that someone like Dan could afford to purchase at least one slave per year for the express purpose of setting them free. I'd further be willing to bet that Dan could organize a group of like minded rich, white liberals who could purchase large numbers of slaves, free them, and set them up for a good life. I believe that they won't, because to do so acknowledges that groups that they support also support slavery. I also believe that it's because they aren't willing to take much if any risks for their beliefs.
It's easy to be against something, and to whine about how immoral it is, until you have to actually deal with it. There's no risk to complaining about slavery hundreds/thousands of years ago. There is a risk to traveling to Mauritania to actually free real living human beings.
Well there you go. It's just leftist posturing. American slavery in the 1800s don't matter at all today, except as a means with which leftist use for that posturing.
Aside from other problems related to freeing slaves of today, most primarily, where do you put them after you purchase their freedom? You'd have to relocate them away from those who enslaved them in the first place, and who would simply enslave them again at the first opportunity. Can't bring them here. We have enough people sucking at the welfare tit as well as sexual slaves as well. Which is another way the lefties could be proving their bona fides with regard to the issue...by freeing sexual slaves and imprisoning their captors.
But nonetheless, the point is clear and true. What are the whiny lefties doing about slavery in today's world? Pretty much nothing.
What I find abhorrent is the fact that with American slavery, NO ONE condemns the Africans who sold their own people into slavery--THEY are the ones to blame for our slavery.
Glenn,
To be more accurate, the Arabs and black conquerors had been selling black Africans into slavery for decades/centuries, they just went ahead and sold to a newer market across the Atlantic. The reality that those on the left don't want to acknowledge is that the black Africans who ended up crossing the Atlantic would have been slaves somewhere else had they not gone to the US and Caribbean. Their servitude was already decided, the only question was where.
I'd argue that those who purchased slaves to bring into North America and the Caribbean bear some responsibility for slavery in North America and the Caribbean. It seems strange to blame the seller of a product, but not the buyer.
Art,
Yes, those involved in purchasing slaves to free them have a process that deals with all of those second order issues. Bob Goff is heavily involved in the ending of slavery and part of that is the purchasing of slaves with the intent of freeing them. I'm curious, if I chose to legally adopt a slave who'd been purchased to be freed, why would that be a problem?
The reality is that the vast majority of those on the left who selectively bitch and moan about slavery in the distant past, do virtually nothing about slavery in 2024. Which is the point.
Their selective memory is why I name checked Hamad ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'id al Murjabi, he's not anyone the Dan's of the world are ever going to spend time criticizing.
I agree that the buyers are responsible, but we really need to point out the evil of the sellers, and the LEFT never wants to acknowledge those who sold their own people (or captives) into slavery.
Glenn,
Absolutely. We need to address the whole problem, not just one part of it.
Post a Comment