Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

How Britain Used India To Replace Slave Labour . Mauritius was completely uninhabited by humans before European arrival. There were no indigenous Africans, no tribes, no native population on the island. This is not opinion, it is established historical fact. The Dutch were the first to settle Mauritius in...

31,377 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

One of the biggest lies taught across all American schools and universities is that whites imposed slavery upon blacks. We need powerful politicians, Trump et. al. to make the following points in a press conference: 1 - Slavery was deeply embedded in African societies throughout history. The blacks that whites bought were already enslaved by blacks. 2 - The Portuguese, British, French, Spanish, and Dutch purchased ENSLAVED Africans from African coastal kingdoms, which had captured blacks from the interior through wars and raids. 2.1 - African elites and tribes, such as the Ashanti, Dahomey, and Yoruba, profited by selling black captives to Europeans. 3 - The Arab-Muslim slave trade was longer-lasting than the European transatlantic trade, and more brutal, with higher mortality rates (up to 80% on some routes) due to castration of males and harsh marches in the Sahara Desert. 3.1 - The Muslim trade spanned the 7th-20th centuries. In this case, the Muslims DID NOT buy enslaved blacks but captured blacks, enslaved them, and then transported them across the Sahara Desert and the Indian Ocean (East African route) to the Islamic world. 3.2 - Historians estimate that during the Muslim trade 17 million Africans were enslaved and transported over 1,300 years --- whereas 6-10 million were transported by Europeans across the Atlantic. 4 - Whites and Christians were responsible for abolishing BOTH the brutal Muslim and the African slave trades. 4.1 - In fact, European colonialists, along with missionary influences, played a key role in the formal abolition of slavery in Africa during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 4.2 - White benevolent colonial powers (Britain, France, Portugal) began abolishing slavery in their African territories in the early 1800s. Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in its empire in 1833. 4.3 - Britain pressured African colonies and African elites to abolish their slave raids. The Africans wanted to continue enslaving other Africans because Africans had no conception of freedom but view each other as objects. 4.4 - The British, in stark contrast, acted according to exclusively White humanitarian ideals and concept of human freedom. France similarly abolished slavery in its West African territories by 1905. 5 - Muslims wanted to continue the slave trade. Islam has no concept of human freedom and lacks humanitarian mercy and compassion. 6 - Christian missionaries, particularly from Britain and France, advocated for abolition, viewing slavery as morally incompatible with Christian values. They established missions and schools to resettle freed slaves and spread anti-slavery ideology. 6.1 - If it were not for White compassion and freedom values, Muslims and Africans would have likely continued their slave trades forever. 7 - The "Barbary slave trade", conducted by North African corsairs (from Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco) between 1530 and 1830 involved the capture and enslavement of FREE Europeans. Around 1.25 million Europeans were enslaved by Barbary pirates between 1530 and 1830. 7.1 - The Barbary pirates were Muslims acting under the auspices of Ottomans in control of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli. 7.2 - This trade ended because White Christians compelled Muslims to end it through British and French bombardments of Algiers. The French had to conquer the barbaric Algiers in 1830 to effectively end large-scale Barbary piracy.

Dr. Ricardo Duchesne

82,250 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

WHO WERE THE CIVILIZED AND WHO WERE THE SAVAGES? They said they came to civilise. But what they brought was nothing but savagery. From Haiti to Australia to the Pacific Islands, this video unpacks the brutal truth behind Europe’s so-called ‘civilising mission.’ The Taíno and Arawak peoples of Haiti, once thriving communities with deep spiritual and agricultural systems, were nearly wiped out within decades of Columbus’s arrival. They were enslaved, mutilated, and hunted like animals all in the name of gold and empire. In Australia, British colonisers declared the land ‘Terra Nullius’ - or nobody’s land - while thousands of Aboriginal people were massacred in cold blood. In Queensland, it’s thought over 24,000 Indigenous lives were taken by government-sanctioned forces. This was not law and order. This was ethnic cleansing, dressed in European uniforms. Across the Pacific, the lie of civilisation took the form of ‘Blackbirding’ - kidnapping tens of thousands from Melanesia and forcing them into backbreaking labour on plantations. Meanwhile, imported diseases erased entire communities. This is not ancient history. The scars are still fresh. The descendants of these communities are still here, still fighting, still remembering. Because colonisation was never about civilisation, it was about extraction, domination and the silencing of Indigenous voices. This video is not just history. It’s resistance. It’s about reclaiming the narrative from Columbus and Cook and all the myths they stood on. It’s about asking, in the face of genocide and greed: Who were the real savages?

African Stream

47,563 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🔴Kwame Ture on Why Karl Marx Did Not Invent Socialism and the Myth That African Liberation Must Be Separated from It Kwame Ture explains here that Karl Marx did not invent socialism and that socialism emerges from material conditions, not Europe. Marx did not create socialism any more than Newton created gravity. He observed, analyzed, and systematized laws that exist independently of him. This directly challenges the claim that scientific socialism is a Western imposition on African liberation because it “came after” Marx. The issue is not chronology, but development. African peoples did not need Marx to recognize exploitation, struggle against domination, or arrive at socialist conclusions. As Ture explains, wherever capital seeks to dominate labor, struggle emerges as a material fact. African resistance to slavery, colonialism, and wage exploitation demonstrates this historically. The clip makes clear that socialism is not “a white thing,” not a European invention, and not alien to African struggle. What Marx contributed was a scientific method for understanding these realities, not the realities themselves. African liberation movements independently developed socialist conclusions as colonial domination matured into capitalism. This affirms African autonomy rather than denying it. Separating Pan-Africanism from scientific socialism on the basis that it predates Marx is not a defense of African history; it is a misunderstanding of how revolutionary struggle develops under material conditions.

Horn of Africa Leftists

39,171 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

THE MYTH THAT AFRICANS ‘SOLD THEIR PEOPLE’ Europeans have attempted to distance themselves from - and avoid accountability for - their atrocities during the centuries-long slave trade by propelling narratives that it was Africans who sold them slaves. On this version, Africans share the blame for the horrors faced by Black people. During his opening remarks on African identity and the decolonisation of education in Africa and the Caribbean at the University of West Indies in Jamaica, at the PJ Patterson Institute for Africa Caribbean Advocacy, vice chancellor Hilary Beckles spoke about the importance of reclaiming our narratives. As Beckles puts it, when history is told from the gunman's perspective, you inevitably get a distorted picture. Beckles dispels the myth that Africans willingly sold their fellow Africans into slavery. While he notes that there were certainly corrupt individuals back then, just as there are now, they were a minority. In Nazi Germany, for example, there were Jewish people who collaborated with the regime, yet no one blames them for the Holocaust. So why is this the line of argument used when it comes to slavery? Most Africans who took part in the slave trade did so for survival and did not have much of a choice. When European narratives paint our ancestors as 'business partners,' it is misleading - a business partner is free to not partake in a business venture without consequences, whereas Africans were not. Moreover, Europeans exacerbated divisions amongst our people, spurring ethnic conflict and wars amongst Africans. It was often ‘prisoners of war’ who were bought by Europeans from Africans. The European narrative has been used to further divide Black people across the world, thus continuing the divide-and-conquer tactics that have ensured African disunity and exploitation for centuries.

African Stream

21,566 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr