Discussion in 'History' started by Myrddin, 24 December 2016.
No one denies the Turkish slave trade of Europeans or across the Sahara. The slavery of whites by whites in the New World is more devastating to anti-white natrratives lets be honest: there is a reason most white and black people don't know it existed. Goad and Hoffman are the starting points.
Morocco at one point took an interest in the colonialist game; a Barbary America allied to the English colonies and aiming to counter Spain is an underused 'what if'. Maybe in the cooler Argentine. Give them quinine from the Incas and they could have beat the Europeans at the colonial game in the Old World tropics where Islam was already established. However the Moroccans took to exploring south across the Sahara instead of at sea despite their seafaring acumen and failed spectacularly despite brilliant military victories using Iberian military technology.
Anyway white identitarianism slips into mythspinning as easily as anti-white ideology: the popularity of European Solutreans in Ice Age North America being a case in point. I suspect the failure of white Americans of mixed Euro origins to confront their own history of white slavery, is because it risks deconstructing the supposed unity of Europe. WNs and such are infamously touchy about the Celtic question: very white Europeans as the victims of European colonialism. White identity replaces new myths with old, but all sacred cows must die.
Another thing; if 'Europe' excludes the Moors and Ottomans but includes Byzantium, purely on religious grounds, then were the Vikings part of Western or European civilisation before Christianisation? Again Europhile narratives based on cultural Christianity never address this; the non-Abrahamic religion of the Old North was more distant from Christianity than is Islam and the legacy of Classical Europe was stronger in the Moslem cities than in Scandinavia or the eastern Baltic.
As for Ottomans
Separate names with a comma.