Great recommendation, he would be the most important guest, since in his book he confirms that the vast majority of blacks in Morocco are a consequence of the slave trade and that some black tribes inhabited southern Morocco in pre-Roman times (Western Ethiopians).
The fact that the professor and others keep using the term ‘black’ to identify African people is in itself a form of colonialistic thinking … we don’t call people yellow people … Afro peoples are Africans or of African origin… Africa spans north south east and west even the term ‘sub Saharan’ Africa is racist and colonialistic👀 racism still exists in North Africa just like it did in South Africa for African peoples….
The answer is simple. There is no grey areas. It's either yes or no. The answer is: Because you are not of the ancient genetics found there and the origin of your genetics can be found else where then no you are not indiginous to North Africa, Not a difficult question at all. The answer is as easy for as for the African.
The 'Americas' are also included in regards to that assertion. Ecologically, the native habitat for creatures adheres to the principle that you mentioned. In laymen's speech, Polar bears will not be found in the jungles of the Congo while Zebras will not be found on the icy glaciers of Antarctica through any such instance for there having to be a naturalization of those occurrences. With imperialism being a pulsating act that happens in waves of colonization, Westernization is a festering invasion.
@@acespark2894 And the ecological changes which occurred since that period have resulted in the biodiversity that exists today. What point were you attempting to bring anyone towards?
Are you a child of a Bantu invader? I bet you are. I am Ethiopian-Eritrean, we do not need "Africa" to tell us where we belong. How do you know about who was in North Africa in prehistory? Did you study any archaeological remains? Because if you did, you would not be so comfortable spouting hotep propaganda. Mind your business - no one group owns Africa.
So, essentially and effectively, Egypt is not Africa?! Right?! That’s essentially what you are saying here. Secondly, and much more fundamental, is that, to me at least, this “story “ appears to be the Arab-North African version of the’feel good’ historiography of the Arab slave trade which preceded the trans-Atlantic slave trade by over six centuries at the very least. Basically, a white-washing of the gross historical crimes and utter gangsterism that the Arab world perpetrated against Africa and the African people. And, of the fact that this ignoble and unforgivably egregious historical crimes against Africans is, to date, still on-going, alive and well. Even to admit that the Arab in Africa is, originally and historically, an invader and colonist, is so reluctant and reductive barely mentioned in passing as, was it “the locals?! An altogether a rather intellectually dishonest rendition of the true story of the Arab enslavement of the Africans and, an attempt to make the Ottomans appear as the progenitors of the Arab-Muslim slave trade. I refer you to UNESCO document 2 which reports the documented evidence and history of the Arab slave trade, particularly the East Africa Arm of this inglorious period in history, and the depredations, pestilence and destructive havoc its impact has had and is still having on the continent. The physical and material evidence for this can still be seen today in the profusion of the Jacaranda Trees in major East African cities like Dar el salaam! Each tree was planted atop the buried remains of the Africans murdered by the Arabs for imagined crimes such as “looking at the face of an Arab woman “. Talk about similarity and affinity with the American slave trade!! Irony?! It must be said though, that the mere acknowledgement of this history and this open discussion about the subject is worthy and necessary. Something to be encouraged
@@rxa-z1124 Because Arabs are not indigenous to North Africa; they come from the Middle East. Many among them are deeply racist to Africans. Remember when the president of Tunisia declared that there were "too many Africans in his country"? The irony!
They see nothing in us and our societies throughout whichever community where they practice Jihadism; hence, the term abīd as it comes close in meaning with that of an abyss. They still drop off sugarcoated versions of the Quaran throughout relocated native African settlements, wait until it's time to exact the measures of takfiri before excommunicating those who can obviously not be true Muslims for fact that we have darker skin and, lastly, enslaving most of the villagers to bring them into various forms of forces servitude including Kafala.
@@nounnounIn truth, they migrated from the Caucasus regions to modern day Jordan and the Arabian peninsula before the establishment of the Byzantine or the Ottoman Empire.
Mumluk also existed during the time of the Abbasid. They were guards and soldiers. The Turks abducted kids from Christian lands who would go on to become Janisari
It's not khilafa it's a US colony like all Muslim regions , And you think your country is not enslaving their ppl ? From The bank system alone it's obvious all of the ppl are slaves . When you go to a company just to have a job , how much you prepare to lie about how great they are 😂
Firstly, the Ottomans were not mercantile/capitalist empire like that of Europe were the fundamental motivation was wealth extraction from the colony but rather the were more mediaeval in the sense that seeking glory and being an Alexander the great wannabe was the motivation of most of the early expansionist Sultans of the Ottomans, hence there was no economic rape of the conquered lands as was the case with the European colonial empires. Secondly, the Ottomans largely gave considerable autonomy to the populations they conquered. For example, the Christians, Jews and other non-muslim inhabitants of the empire have there own laws and judicial system. They don't have to follow the Shari'a laws of the empire and are given freedom to follow there own jurisprudence with there own judiciary, the Christian for example have there own judicial system with laws made by the churches within the empire as well as there local princes. And yes, princes. Just like how the sharifs of Mecca and the Mamluks of Egypt were left to continue existing, almost every indigenous structure of government there, be it princes or tribal chiefs of Bedouins and Berber were left intact but only incorporated into the Ottoman Empire. As long they swear fealty to the central power in Constantinople and pay there taxes to the central government they were left to govern there own affairs. The Ottoman governors were only there as administrative supervisors or simply there side by side with the local authorities sometimes in competition and sometimes in cooperation. It depends on how powerful the local authorities are and how important the province is to the empire. The Ottomans deliberately made little attempt in converting and assimilating the Christian inhabitants of the empire as the jizya was one of there biggest source of incomes. The only systemic oppression the Ottomans did there Christian inhabitants was the imposition of the devshirme system were Christian villages and towns in the Balkans are forced to give 1/40 of there young boys to turn them into the janissaries that is part of the war machine of the empire, even that was stopped in the mid 1500s. So no, the Ottomans didn't colonise any of the land they conquered, I'm the Middle East and North Africa there were just another caliphate like the Abbasids before them and in the Balkans, there was some oppression initially but considerable autonomy and freedoms comparable to ones in modern liberal democracies as long as they pay there taxes for the most part. So no the Ottomans didn't colonise the middle east and the Balkans but rather it was very similar in these areas as to how the professor said the Ottomans treated north Africa. They were not comparable to the European colonial empires.
He calls North Africa arap like a 100 times yet he talks about decolonizing North Africa😂😂😂 who’s gonna tell this “historian” araps colonized North Africa?😭 not even to mention how he claims that Ottomans didn’t colonize North Africa lol what a clown
Listening to this talking head conversation left me feeling a little resentful. North Africa and the Arab world are in a terrible state of subjugation and turmoil by the US/West, with Israel their out of control pitbull causing havoc in the region. And yet I sense a smugness being displayed listening to this conversation. I get the impression that North African slavery is being compared to the much admired US model. The difference, US ended slavery I wish we could say the same for the Arab world. For sharp contrast, what's taking place in Palestine? Am I the only witness to the many people standing up and demonstrating for Palestinians around the world? Including Africans. Arab demonstration anyone? Anyone! Even Fearless South Africa, the first nation to make a stand for the Palestinian people. The world is still waiting for a comment by any Arab government spokesperson. The deafening noise continues as we wait for the long fast of silence to be broken. Yet this conversation, is glorifying Arab slavery. Mamluk's! Mamluk's! Mamluk's! Is all I'm hearing elevated to god like status. Lol! Maybe they should be brought back to life like the Oathbreakers in Tolkien's. Shame they destroyed the fighting Moorish civilization. The irony for me listening to this bore is that slavery still exist in the Arab world and the subjects are mostly African people. The people's who's land was stolen along with the appropriation of their identity and culture. The prophet of Islam who sought refuge in Africa was treated with great dignity and respect. As a result he went on to create the religion in whose hand millions of Africans lost their lives and still suffer indignity today by the hands of Arabs. It's certainly one book I won't be recommending to anyone.
@@AdamAzzr "moors" is a catch-all phrase used on the Iberian peninsula for Africans and Arabs that ruled during the 700 year Muslim conquest. Many of those people were not actually muslim. Some converted, some pretended to convert if you read the history.
@@allanluis3696 that’s what happens to you when you learn history from Facebook, the moors were indeed arabs and North africans, and guess what? They ruled with the charia laws, the culture was Muslim, the architecture was islamic, the clothes were based on islamic rules which means being covered and modest , the music praised Allah and Mohamed and so on. Talking about a minority who blended into the new Society doesn’t mean Anything, it’s like if Told you that the abbasid caliphate was not muslim because there were also christians living there.
@@AdamAzzr This has nothing to do with what was posted. The post was defining what was being referred to by the medieval term "Moor". There is no such thing as "Islamic architecture". The architecture was Sahelian and Byzatine. Islam is very good at erasing cultures and histories and appropriating them as Arab and Islamic. There is very little called Islamic which did not in fact come from pre-Islamic societies, including east, west and northern Aftica, the Nile Valley, Levant and Yemen, Persia, India, and Greco-Roman classicism.
I sincerely appreciate this form of multifaceted and calm dialogue and analysis. I hope for a pan African historian conference. I totally agree with the point made that the "Barbary slave trade" or rather the Mediterrenean slave trade is overwhelmingly represented from the European (Christian) victim side - the evidence of the European enslavers such as the Order of the Maltese for instance, is conviniently omitted.Thank you very much
@@afikraAbsolutely, like I said, we need more of such dialogues. We need to stop looking at our cultures, our solidarity & our conflicts through the white aka Western filter.
@@masehoart7569 Slavery started with the Arabs and the European perfected it. And the European, begin to enslaved the whole world, it begin with a mild way for some and a harder way for people, who has no power.
Well, maybe that this is true in this episode. in history, I think the opposite is true and it’s overrepresented from the fact that the Europeans are known as the slave traders and colonizers when they were not the only ones to do this Arabs had a much larger and much more barbaric slave trade also a lot higher in numbers as well
Thank you. For me, it seems the real conversation on this topic begins a around 24:00 . Here was an opportunity to address the unspoken issues which exist prominently in global society. Namely, anti Black sentiments and subjugation of Black people in many Arab and Muslim countries- to include, not least of all, the UE.
@@asmarshadeed The only time blacks traded in white slaves was under Islam. Plus chattel slavery was unheard of below the Sahara until the euro Asian coalition
@@asmarshadeed chattel slavery absolutely is anti-black. To deny this is outrageous. And most of the "blacks" that participated in Trans-Sahara slavery were Blacks with mixed Arab ancestry that saw themselves different from the indigenous black population.
At the start you state this information is suppressed because it supports anti Black racism. I would argue it’s suppressed because it reveals much of the “Caucasian “ element of North Africa is not native or Arab. You don’t see the Ottomans as colonizers because the elites of those lands are by in large Turk. If the Ottomans are not colonizers then neither were the Byzantines and Latins before them for reasons you gave.
North Africans prior to antiquity were already mixed. If these people descend from the original inhabitants regardless of appearance, wouldn't they be native?
@@jabu1591 “Mixed” not anymore than anywhere else in “antiquity”. Now upon entering the “classical period” yes, much outside migration. I do stand corrected in my use of native, for sure if you are born somewhere you are indeed “native”. A better term would be not aboriginal. I see the DNA reports online. It’s usually mostly Levantine, Iberian & Yamnaya. Suggesting that migration of outside is large in heritage. Of course the land would have been previously inhabited with continental Africans.
@@18breaths66 North Africa already had mass migrations from southern Europe and the Levant. Even the Iberamarusian which is considered indigenous to north west Africa mind you, had Eurasian genes mixed with West African
@@18breaths66black people were never present in north Africa. Amazighs are the only native people to that land. Funny how black people want to own all of Africa even parts they never were present in. Disgusting.
If Ottomans were colonizers then you would have to apply the same rationale to the Rashidun Caliphate. Islamic caliphates cannot be compared to western colonialism which occupied lands for the sheer purpose of exporting wealth to Europe and marginalizing the locals. With that said, we know that slavery was rampant during this time across the globe and cannot be justified. Much of slavery in the Ottoman empire was of white eastern Europeans.
You’re not authorized to say that. Despite a different rationale this was the reality. Note that western slave owners told themselves that they were doing a favor and civilizing Africans. It’s a blessing that it’s okay to openly criticize in the west that lets us see this as bogus.
You are trying to ignore the wrongs of Islamic history that was based on plunder, and enslaving others. Ignoring the revolt of Zang in the Abbasid times.
@@a.abdulqadir9104 can you name me one empire that didn't "plunder"? Very easy for modern day people to view history through a contemporary yardstick. Historical dynasties should be compared to their contemporaries.
It is interesting that the main point of the podcast went over the heads of people that embrace the generic abuses of the English term "slavery". It's uses are so imprecise it is pointless. Part of the problem is of course colonial and colonial languages that foster false equivalents between historically specific events.
Im so glad to have found this podcast. I hadn't heard of M'hamed Oualdi before this but his recommendations at the end were very nice. I wonder how much overlap there is between his work and the recent work of Dr. Jonathan AC Brown of Georgetown on slavery in Islam in general. im excited to read m'hamed's work so i can dive deeper into this topic [im just an interested lay person]
There are French and Spanish marriage records marrying North Africans. And there are descendants living in Europe. I have paged through those documents doing research, but it's been a while. I am sure anyone researching could discover them.
Would it be important to mention how prophet Mohammed the best example for all Muslims ,dealt with slavery ? did he actually have slaves or was he involved with slavetrade himself ?
So now Mo' isn't an example? Surah 33:21 These clowns change masks whenever they're exposed. Hadiths become inauthentic, Surahs abrogated, and scriptures corrupted, all that their convenience. Not only was the man himself a slaver, slavery exists even his vision of paradise.
@jj-yi1ne Christianity was refined by Greek humanism (then innovated with Roman traditions). People really underestimate how much the Greeks made Christianity into what it is today - a more humanist/humane religion than Islam. Islam is still very much an "Arab religion" - it will need deep reforms from more spiritually aware cultures. Let's not pretend that Arabs come from an evolved culture, they clearly do not.
You should also have brought in John Alembillah Azumah, author of the masterpiece "The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue". That book written years ago contains great info about Arab Islam slavery.
In short the Arana and Muslims behaved exactly like the westerns European. Had they stumbled across the new world it would have been exactly the same. The lack of accountability is dosgusting
@@faceplants599 that is false. At a basic level all regimes have propaganda. Empire building a military conquests at a high level always has civilians as targets. Don’t ask the Muslims aak the Christians about what they faces be it massacre, coercion bullying etc.this type of abuse is standard for all empires as a tool to gain control despite at times establishing norms of peace and tolerance for minorities as 2nd class citizens. That too is also a tool of conquest.
@@faceplants599 read about the African slave trade, Barbary pirates..Armenian massacre and much more. Of course an oppressor won’t say they impressed anyone. Asked the people who were impressed and displaced.
@@jimcook796 African slave trade always existed between local tribes before outsiders enslaved them. Barbary pirates came after European piracy was already established. Armenians were massacred by Young Turks who were secular and fought against the Islamic order. Maybe read books more
Kemet/ Egypt was a Black Continent and the Arabs are The Johnny come Lately i wanna talk about their believe system from Christian and Islam their are Political not Spiritual. I see that in the Palestinian case, who was there to help them a South African call Pandora, because they have The UBUNTU system I am because you are.
Arabs told us Hadith that they aren’t above any race but in reality they’re not, I have been both Arab nation and western countries the amount of disrespect I got from the people that call me their brother is out of this world on the other hand I got respected in the west welcomed so I’m not here to change the mindset of Arabs but just telling
An apt question would be what does a North African look like ? Because I know that in eg Algeria the colour range of Algerians varies according to where you live in Algeria eg in the north and Kabyle the Algerians are fairer and further south they look more African but speak the same language ….
What is the word he's using, "hosilization," to describe something Muslims did to Africans south of the Sahara? Am I just not hearing the word correctly? What is the correct word? Also, slavery was banned in Europe and the speaker extended that ban to North Africa. Why? Was North Africa considered Europe? Confusing.
Because that is who was enslaving the Europeans, so much so that north Africans have tons of European DNA today. Sex slavery, guess what that leads too. People forgot but the DNA never lies.😮
French accent... without watching the whole thing, I say he's gonna call Arabs & Ottoman presence as a colonial occupation to trivialize the French colonization...
@@sherifkarmo2382 yes the portuguese gave them caviar and wine. Still waiting for a podcast about subsaharans enslaving each other and selling each other to the portuguese merchants.
@@sherifkarmo2382yeah the portuguese gave them caviar and wine. Still waiting for podcast about the subsaran tribes ensl/ving other tribes and selling them to the portuguese merchants.
People become anti-black because they're ignorant and listening to other ignorant people. North Africans are mostly just mixed Africans. The ones that live on the coasts are more mixed, and the further inland you go, the less mixed they are. That simple. Same for Semitic people. Soqotri have been isolated until more recently on an island off the coasts of Yemen, and have African genomes and speak a Semitic language. They're also brown and dark brown people who look like more akin to East Africans. Further inland in North Africa, people are dark brown and those people are related to the lighter people on the coasts.
I have to disagree with the professor because. Africa has been colonised by the Ottoman empire as they have imposed their language ( Arabic )and their culture. Plus, they colonised indigenous people of that region. So they are no different from the white coloniser
Arabic was not the primary language of the Ottoman sultans. To the contrary, all existing languages within the Ottoman domains were preserved and institutionalized locally. There no Turkish speakers in Ottoman lands outside of Turkey. This is the main point... proof that the Ottomans did NOT impose their culture because the Ottoman empire was a Caliphate, not an ethno-based system.
😂this ‘professor’ doesn’t know North African history the ottomans ruled North Africa from the 1500s …. That’s why Egyptians Libyans and Tunisians will have ottoman or western Asian dna and Arab dna …. Where as Algeria and Morocco is mainly amazigh… that’s why most North Africans are not native to the African continent… the ottomans even ruled the Arabian peninsular until the 1940s…. Check the dna of North Africans the truth will be evident…
A topic should be done on the North African Amazigh slave trade into Europe namely southern Europe in the 16th to the 18th century … this is a part of North African history that most North Africans don’t know about today… Arab slavery in Africa spanned north east and west Africa transporting Africans from Africa to Asia hence why there are African communities in Asia today … its was the first and most brutal form of slavery well into the 20th century and till this day it is practiced against African people today… eg in Libya Lebanon the the gulf states as well as in Yemen… the North African dna reveals very little ottoman dna its mainly Amazigh ans southern European from the North African slave trade….
Respected, From Pakistan, In my opinion physical Slavery is declining in real terms. Now it has multiple ways in today's life. Would appreciate if your valuable reply 1) Mental Slavery 2) In which category you recognise Footballers transfer from clubs to clubs ( Not a Glorify way of Slavery) 3) Development of Brands or Brands consciousness isn't a way of Slavery. 4) Officially declared brothel in Europe and everywhere isn't a form of Slavery + unofficial prostitution.
@a.abdulqadir9104 Respected Upto certain extent your assessment is correct. What will you call Loyalty to certain objectives/ brands isn't mental Slavery. You observe people have become Obsesse with many things. Psychologically they have become Slaves. Loyalty to football clubs is mental while keeping players under contract in which they can't move anywhere isn't Slavery. Humans behaviour for many products is another kind of mental Slavery. Unlimited things Unlimited examples.
Interesting. It would be good to invite Dr Chouki El Hamel. His research is very extensive in regards to slavery, black people and Morocco.
Great recommendation, he would be the most important guest, since in his book he confirms that the vast majority of blacks in Morocco are a consequence of the slave trade and that some black tribes inhabited southern Morocco in pre-Roman times (Western Ethiopians).
Definitely...
The fact that the professor and others keep using the term ‘black’ to identify African people is in itself a form of colonialistic thinking … we don’t call people yellow people … Afro peoples are Africans or of African origin… Africa spans north south east and west even the term ‘sub Saharan’ Africa is racist and colonialistic👀 racism still exists in North Africa just like it did in South Africa for African peoples….
The answer is simple. There is no grey areas. It's either yes or no. The answer is: Because you are not of the ancient genetics found there and the origin of your genetics can be found else where then no you are not indiginous to North Africa, Not a difficult question at all. The answer is as easy for as for the African.
The 'Americas' are also included in regards to that assertion. Ecologically, the native habitat for creatures adheres to the principle that you mentioned. In laymen's speech, Polar bears will not be found in the jungles of the Congo while Zebras will not be found on the icy glaciers of Antarctica through any such instance for there having to be a naturalization of those occurrences.
With imperialism being a pulsating act that happens in waves of colonization, Westernization is a festering invasion.
You do realize the world was one land mass?
@@acespark2894 And the ecological changes which occurred since that period have resulted in the biodiversity that exists today.
What point were you attempting to bring anyone towards?
Are you a child of a Bantu invader? I bet you are. I am Ethiopian-Eritrean, we do not need "Africa" to tell us where we belong. How do you know about who was in North Africa in prehistory? Did you study any archaeological remains? Because if you did, you would not be so comfortable spouting hotep propaganda. Mind your business - no one group owns Africa.
Amazigh people are the only natives of north Africa. There never was black people on yhese lands.
So, essentially and effectively, Egypt is not Africa?! Right?! That’s essentially what you are saying here.
Secondly, and much more fundamental, is that, to me at least, this “story “ appears to be the Arab-North African version of the’feel good’ historiography of the Arab slave trade which preceded the trans-Atlantic slave trade by over six centuries at the very least. Basically, a white-washing of the gross historical crimes and utter gangsterism that the Arab world perpetrated against Africa and the African people. And, of the fact that this ignoble and unforgivably egregious historical crimes against Africans is, to date, still on-going, alive and well. Even to admit that the Arab in Africa is, originally and historically, an invader and colonist, is so reluctant and reductive barely mentioned in passing as, was it “the locals?!
An altogether a rather intellectually dishonest rendition of the true story of the Arab enslavement of the Africans and, an attempt to make the Ottomans appear as the progenitors of the Arab-Muslim slave trade.
I refer you to UNESCO document 2 which reports the documented evidence and history of the Arab slave trade, particularly the East Africa Arm of this inglorious period in history, and the depredations, pestilence and destructive havoc its impact has had and is still having on the continent. The physical and material evidence for this can still be seen today in the profusion of the Jacaranda Trees in major East African cities like Dar el salaam! Each tree was planted atop the buried remains of the Africans murdered by the Arabs for imagined crimes such as “looking at the face of an Arab woman “. Talk about similarity and affinity with the American slave trade!! Irony?!
It must be said though, that the mere acknowledgement of this history and this open discussion about the subject is worthy and necessary. Something to be encouraged
I find that most North Africans (Arabs) identify with the Middle East more than the mother continent.
@@rxa-z1124 Because Arabs are not indigenous to North Africa; they come from the Middle East. Many among them are deeply racist to Africans. Remember when the president of Tunisia declared that there were "too many Africans in his country"? The irony!
They see nothing in us and our societies throughout whichever community where they practice Jihadism; hence, the term abīd as it comes close in meaning with that of an abyss.
They still drop off sugarcoated versions of the Quaran throughout relocated native African settlements, wait until it's time to exact the measures of takfiri before excommunicating those who can obviously not be true Muslims for fact that we have darker skin and, lastly, enslaving most of the villagers to bring them into various forms of forces servitude including Kafala.
@@nounnounIn truth, they migrated from the Caucasus regions to modern day Jordan and the Arabian peninsula before the establishment of the Byzantine or the Ottoman Empire.
Liars, liars. The same rubbish nothing new.
Mumluk also existed during the time of the Abbasid. They were guards and soldiers. The Turks abducted kids from Christian lands who would go on to become Janisari
Slavery still exists in Saudi Arabia with Kafala system
It's not khilafa it's a US colony like all Muslim regions ,
And you think your country is not enslaving their ppl ?
From The bank system alone it's obvious all of the ppl are slaves .
When you go to a company just to have a job , how much you prepare to lie about how great they are 😂
It still exist in Nigeria and congo
Saudi Arabia is not North Africa. Again, conflating, ethnicities, regions with religions - the typical Eurocentric imperialistic agenda
And Qatar, Kuwait UAE
@@jabu1591 Muslims will try to whitewash by saying it never existed or it will ever exist in a Muslim society
The Ottomans might not have colonized North Africa, but they did in the Middle East and the Balkans, which were treated quite poorly.
Firstly, the Ottomans were not mercantile/capitalist empire like that of Europe were the fundamental motivation was wealth extraction from the colony but rather the were more mediaeval in the sense that seeking glory and being an Alexander the great wannabe was the motivation of most of the early expansionist Sultans of the Ottomans, hence there was no economic rape of the conquered lands as was the case with the European colonial empires. Secondly, the Ottomans largely gave considerable autonomy to the populations they conquered. For example, the Christians, Jews and other non-muslim inhabitants of the empire have there own laws and judicial system. They don't have to follow the Shari'a laws of the empire and are given freedom to follow there own jurisprudence with there own judiciary, the Christian for example have there own judicial system with laws made by the churches within the empire as well as there local princes. And yes, princes. Just like how the sharifs of Mecca and the Mamluks of Egypt were left to continue existing, almost every indigenous structure of government there, be it princes or tribal chiefs of Bedouins and Berber were left intact but only incorporated into the Ottoman Empire. As long they swear fealty to the central power in Constantinople and pay there taxes to the central government they were left to govern there own affairs. The Ottoman governors were only there as administrative supervisors or simply there side by side with the local authorities sometimes in competition and sometimes in cooperation. It depends on how powerful the local authorities are and how important the province is to the empire. The Ottomans deliberately made little attempt in converting and assimilating the Christian inhabitants of the empire as the jizya was one of there biggest source of incomes.
The only systemic oppression the Ottomans did there Christian inhabitants was the imposition of the devshirme system were Christian villages and towns in the Balkans are forced to give 1/40 of there young boys to turn them into the janissaries that is part of the war machine of the empire, even that was stopped in the mid 1500s. So no, the Ottomans didn't colonise any of the land they conquered, I'm the Middle East and North Africa there were just another caliphate like the Abbasids before them and in the Balkans, there was some oppression initially but considerable autonomy and freedoms comparable to ones in modern liberal democracies as long as they pay there taxes for the most part. So no the Ottomans didn't colonise the middle east and the Balkans but rather it was very similar in these areas as to how the professor said the Ottomans treated north Africa. They were not comparable to the European colonial empires.
speaker’s English not very good. I’m sure your French is better. Wouldn’t it be better to stick to French for clarity 😂😂😂😂😂
English is not his first language. But it's not that bad.
He calls North Africa arap like a 100 times yet he talks about decolonizing North Africa😂😂😂 who’s gonna tell this “historian” araps colonized North Africa?😭 not even to mention how he claims that Ottomans didn’t colonize North Africa lol what a clown
Listening to this talking head conversation left me feeling a little resentful. North Africa and the Arab world are in a terrible state of subjugation and turmoil by the US/West, with Israel their out of control pitbull causing havoc in the region. And yet I sense a smugness being displayed listening to this conversation. I get the impression that North African slavery is being compared to the much admired US model. The difference, US ended slavery I wish we could say the same for the Arab world. For sharp contrast, what's taking place in Palestine? Am I the only witness to the many people standing up and demonstrating for Palestinians around the world? Including Africans. Arab demonstration anyone? Anyone! Even Fearless South Africa, the first nation to make a stand for the Palestinian people. The world is still waiting for a comment by any Arab government spokesperson. The deafening noise continues as we wait for the long fast of silence to be broken. Yet this conversation, is glorifying Arab slavery. Mamluk's! Mamluk's! Mamluk's! Is all I'm hearing elevated to god like status. Lol! Maybe they should be brought back to life like the Oathbreakers in Tolkien's. Shame they destroyed the fighting Moorish civilization.
The irony for me listening to this bore is that slavery still exist in the Arab world and the subjects are mostly African people. The people's who's land was stolen along with the appropriation of their identity and culture. The prophet of Islam who sought refuge in Africa was treated with great dignity and respect. As a result he went on to create the religion in whose hand millions of Africans lost their lives and still suffer indignity today by the hands of Arabs. It's certainly one book I won't be recommending to anyone.
Praising the moors and then talking sh/t about islam, very smart internet expert
@@AdamAzzr "moors" is a catch-all phrase used on the Iberian peninsula for Africans and Arabs that ruled during the 700 year Muslim conquest. Many of those people were not actually muslim. Some converted, some pretended to convert if you read the history.
@@allanluis3696 that’s what happens to you when you learn history from Facebook, the moors were indeed arabs and North africans, and guess what? They ruled with the charia laws, the culture was Muslim, the architecture was islamic, the clothes were based on islamic rules which means being covered and modest , the music praised Allah and Mohamed and so on.
Talking about a minority who blended into the new Society doesn’t mean Anything, it’s like if Told you that the abbasid caliphate was not muslim because there were also christians living there.
@@allanluis3696
All correct. And the term Moor or Maurus is older than medieval Iberia, going back to the Romans.
@@AdamAzzr
This has nothing to do with what was posted. The post was defining what was being referred to by the medieval term "Moor".
There is no such thing as "Islamic architecture". The architecture was Sahelian and Byzatine. Islam is very good at erasing cultures and histories and appropriating them as Arab and Islamic.
There is very little called Islamic which did not in fact come from pre-Islamic societies, including east, west and northern Aftica, the Nile Valley, Levant and Yemen, Persia, India, and Greco-Roman classicism.
I sincerely appreciate this form of multifaceted and calm dialogue and analysis. I hope for a pan African historian conference. I totally agree with the point made that the "Barbary slave trade" or rather the Mediterrenean slave trade is overwhelmingly represented from the European (Christian) victim side - the evidence of the European enslavers such as the Order of the Maltese for instance, is conviniently omitted.Thank you very much
We're happy you found the episode insightful!
@@afikraAbsolutely, like I said, we need more of such dialogues. We need to stop looking at our cultures, our solidarity & our conflicts through the white aka Western filter.
@@masehoart7569 Slavery started with the Arabs and the European perfected it. And the European, begin to enslaved the whole world, it begin with a mild way for some and a harder way for people, who has no power.
Well, maybe that this is true in this episode. in history, I think the opposite is true and it’s overrepresented from the fact that the Europeans are known as the slave traders and colonizers when they were not the only ones to do this Arabs had a much larger and much more barbaric slave trade also a lot higher in numbers as well
Thank you. For me, it seems the real conversation on this topic begins a around 24:00 . Here was an opportunity to address the unspoken issues which exist prominently in global society. Namely, anti Black sentiments and subjugation of Black people in many Arab and Muslim countries- to include, not least of all, the UE.
Slavery was not anti-Black....why do you jump to this label? The Blacks were also involved in the trading people both black and white
@@asmarshadeed The only time blacks traded in white slaves was under Islam. Plus chattel slavery was unheard of below the Sahara until the euro Asian coalition
@@asmarshadeed chattel slavery absolutely is anti-black. To deny this is outrageous. And most of the "blacks" that participated in Trans-Sahara slavery were Blacks with mixed Arab ancestry that saw themselves different from the indigenous black population.
@@asmarshadeed Slavery of black Africans is still happening today.
@@allanluis3696 Completely false !
The meaning of slavery is different from the West.
It’s over Whitesupremists
What, 😅explain yourself please
At the start you state this information is suppressed because it supports anti Black racism.
I would argue it’s suppressed because it reveals much of the “Caucasian “ element of North Africa is not native or Arab.
You don’t see the Ottomans as colonizers because the elites of those lands are by in large Turk.
If the Ottomans are not colonizers then neither were the Byzantines and Latins before them for reasons you gave.
North Africans prior to antiquity were already mixed. If these people descend from the original inhabitants regardless of appearance, wouldn't they be native?
@@jabu1591 “Mixed” not anymore than anywhere else in “antiquity”. Now upon entering the “classical period” yes, much outside migration. I do stand corrected in my use of native, for sure if you are born somewhere you are indeed “native”. A better term would be not aboriginal. I see the DNA reports online. It’s usually mostly Levantine, Iberian & Yamnaya. Suggesting that migration of outside is large in heritage. Of course the land would have been previously inhabited with continental Africans.
@@18breaths66 North Africa already had mass migrations from southern Europe and the Levant. Even the Iberamarusian which is considered indigenous to north west Africa mind you, had Eurasian genes mixed with West African
@@18breaths66black people were never present in north Africa. Amazighs are the only native people to that land. Funny how black people want to own all of Africa even parts they never were present in. Disgusting.
If Ottomans were colonizers then you would have to apply the same rationale to the Rashidun Caliphate. Islamic caliphates cannot be compared to western colonialism which occupied lands for the sheer purpose of exporting wealth to Europe and marginalizing the locals. With that said, we know that slavery was rampant during this time across the globe and cannot be justified. Much of slavery in the Ottoman empire was of white eastern Europeans.
You’re not authorized to say that. Despite a different rationale this was the reality. Note that western slave owners told themselves that they were doing a favor and civilizing Africans. It’s a blessing that it’s okay to openly criticize in the west that lets us see this as bogus.
You are trying to ignore the wrongs of Islamic history that was based on plunder, and enslaving others. Ignoring the revolt of Zang in the Abbasid times.
@@a.abdulqadir9104 can you name me one empire that didn't "plunder"? Very easy for modern day people to view history through a contemporary yardstick. Historical dynasties should be compared to their contemporaries.
He did not say Ottomans were colonizers, he replyed No to that question, did you listen to the whole video?
@@anshinee.8186my comment was not to disagree but to add a supporting perspective.
Great job, alhamdulillah. 👍Allah bless you. Keep going.
It is interesting that the main point of the podcast went over the heads of people that embrace the generic abuses of the English term "slavery". It's uses are so imprecise it is pointless. Part of the problem is of course colonial and colonial languages that foster false equivalents between historically specific events.
Im so glad to have found this podcast. I hadn't heard of M'hamed Oualdi before this but his recommendations at the end were very nice. I wonder how much overlap there is between his work and the recent work of Dr. Jonathan AC Brown of Georgetown on slavery in Islam in general. im excited to read m'hamed's work so i can dive deeper into this topic [im just an interested lay person]
We're glad you found the episode useful!
A lot of mad Jareers in these comments 😂😂😂. They can stay mad
I’m maddd😢
@@murnyang8381 Nah, don’t be mad, your a good guy
Egypt is Africa, as is Tunisia.
Why do you refer to them as Arab?
There are French and Spanish marriage records marrying North Africans. And there are descendants living in Europe. I have paged through those documents doing research, but it's been a while. I am sure anyone researching could discover them.
Those mariages were rare and extremely taboo
Would it be important to mention how prophet Mohammed the best example for all Muslims ,dealt with slavery ? did he actually have slaves or was he involved with slavetrade himself ?
@jj-yi1ne This is not answering my question at all.
So now Mo' isn't an example?
Surah 33:21
These clowns change masks whenever they're exposed. Hadiths become inauthentic, Surahs abrogated, and scriptures corrupted, all that their convenience.
Not only was the man himself a slaver, slavery exists even his vision of paradise.
@jj-yi1ne Christianity was refined by Greek humanism (then innovated with Roman traditions). People really underestimate how much the Greeks made Christianity into what it is today - a more humanist/humane religion than Islam. Islam is still very much an "Arab religion" - it will need deep reforms from more spiritually aware cultures. Let's not pretend that Arabs come from an evolved culture, they clearly do not.
@@mmgxoI mean you better be a white European. Cause nothing "evolved" ever came out of black people xd
You should also have brought in John Alembillah Azumah, author of the masterpiece "The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue". That book written years ago contains great info about Arab Islam slavery.
Very interesting, too bad the conversation went above the head of many people in the comments
You are guilty Now chicken come to Roost
In short the Arana and Muslims behaved exactly like the westerns European. Had they stumbled across the new world it would have been exactly the same. The lack of accountability is dosgusting
Except that Muslim Conquest did not Target civilian people like Western Christian conquest committed mass murders and genocides
@@faceplants599 that is false. At a basic level all regimes have propaganda. Empire building a military conquests at a high level always has civilians as targets. Don’t ask the Muslims aak the Christians about what they faces be it massacre, coercion bullying etc.this type of abuse is standard for all empires as a tool to gain control despite at times establishing norms of peace and tolerance for minorities as 2nd class citizens. That too is also a tool of conquest.
@@jimcook796 Christian conquest and Muslim conquests were completely different. One targeted and massacred civilians, the other did not
@@faceplants599 read about the African slave trade, Barbary pirates..Armenian massacre and much more. Of course an oppressor won’t say they impressed anyone. Asked the people who were impressed and displaced.
@@jimcook796 African slave trade always existed between local tribes before outsiders enslaved them. Barbary pirates came after European piracy was already established. Armenians were massacred by Young Turks who were secular and fought against the Islamic order. Maybe read books more
I think Mongol captured Russia and parts of Caucasus. Later many Mongols converted to Islam and some people in Caucasus might have converted as well
It were the Mumluk who defeated or rather defended parts of Syria against Mongol in 13 or 14th century. The Ottoman rose to power later
Kemet/ Egypt was a Black Continent and the Arabs are The Johnny come Lately i wanna talk about their believe system from Christian and Islam their are Political not Spiritual. I see that in the Palestinian case, who was there to help them a South African call Pandora, because they have The UBUNTU system I am because you are.
Just waffle on the anti black racism, topic. Not good if educated Arab wants to avoid answering.
Why Caucasus? He didn't answer ir properly. Does it mean Caucasus was conquered during the ottoman. I think it was conquered much earlier
He is the historian, he does not white wash. 😊
Be good to have some more information about the women enslaved in North Africa next time.
The Mumluk also fought against the Fatimid
Arabs told us Hadith that they aren’t above any race but in reality they’re not, I have been both Arab nation and western countries the amount of disrespect I got from the people that call me their brother is out of this world on the other hand I got respected in the west welcomed so I’m not here to change the mindset of Arabs but just telling
Somali?
@@Jareers-ef8hp nah
@@aryanali6527 Where are you from bro?
@@Jareers-ef8hp I’m Mauritanian
@@aryanali6527 How can you be a white supremacist if you're not white yourself ??? you're Mauritanian.
An apt question would be what does a North African look like ? Because I know that in eg Algeria the colour range of Algerians varies according to where you live in Algeria eg in the north and Kabyle the Algerians are fairer and further south they look more African but speak the same language ….
@@tahliah6691 black and white Algerians are not the same people, one is Berber the other is not. Amazigh are Jews a minority in Morocco
How about Muslims in maghrib
What is the word he's using, "hosilization," to describe something Muslims did to Africans south of the Sahara? Am I just not hearing the word correctly? What is the correct word? Also, slavery was banned in Europe and the speaker extended that ban to North Africa. Why? Was North Africa considered Europe? Confusing.
Because that is who was enslaving the Europeans, so much so that north Africans have tons of European DNA today. Sex slavery, guess what that leads too. People forgot but the DNA never lies.😮
As colonies they followed french rules. Pretty simple
French accent... without watching the whole thing, I say he's gonna call Arabs & Ottoman presence as a colonial occupation to trivialize the French colonization...
I listened to the whole video and he did not say that, on the opposite
@@anshinee.8186
Thanks
Thanks!
So grateful for the support!
Next topic Should be about subsaharan African tribes enslaving each other and selling them to the portuguese
The Arab Muslim slave trade was a holocaust that lead to the Portuguese slave trade. The Portuguese didn't do castration
@@sherifkarmo2382 yes the portuguese gave them caviar and wine. Still waiting for a podcast about subsaharans enslaving each other and selling each other to the portuguese merchants.
@@sherifkarmo2382yeah the portuguese gave them caviar and wine. Still waiting for podcast about the subsaran tribes ensl/ving other tribes and selling them to the portuguese merchants.
على الاساس انو المجازر توقفت في هذا الوقت ، الرجل الابيض مسيطر بلكامل على هذا الشريف ههخخ @@sherifkarmo2382
@@AdamAzzrthe fact that mahgrebians talk immediatly about european slaving part when the subject is about arabs still make me laugh
People become anti-black because they're ignorant and listening to other ignorant people. North Africans are mostly just mixed Africans. The ones that live on the coasts are more mixed, and the further inland you go, the less mixed they are. That simple. Same for Semitic people. Soqotri have been isolated until more recently on an island off the coasts of Yemen, and have African genomes and speak a Semitic language. They're also brown and dark brown people who look like more akin to East Africans. Further inland in North Africa, people are dark brown and those people are related to the lighter people on the coasts.
False, those who lives in the mountains are Whiter than those who lives on the coast.
Arabs adopted a racist belief about black people and the Berbers then adopted it.
@@jabu1591Romans are Angels
I have to disagree with the professor because. Africa has been colonised by the Ottoman empire as they have imposed their language ( Arabic )and their culture. Plus, they colonised indigenous people of that region. So they are no different from the white coloniser
The Ottomans spoke Turkish and not Arabic. You have to distinguish between Islamization -Arabization and outright colonization.
Arabic was not the primary language of the Ottoman sultans. To the contrary, all existing languages within the Ottoman domains were preserved and institutionalized locally. There no Turkish speakers in Ottoman lands outside of Turkey. This is the main point... proof that the Ottomans did NOT impose their culture because the Ottoman empire was a Caliphate, not an ethno-based system.
The language of the Ottomans is Osmanlı and based on Turkish
@@khubza8999 Afraid of truth.
@@abusufSo YOU say!
😂this ‘professor’ doesn’t know North African history the ottomans ruled North Africa from the 1500s …. That’s why Egyptians Libyans and Tunisians will have ottoman or western Asian dna and Arab dna …. Where as Algeria and Morocco is mainly amazigh… that’s why most North Africans are not native to the African continent… the ottomans even ruled the Arabian peninsular until the 1940s…. Check the dna of North Africans the truth will be evident…
A topic should be done on the North African Amazigh slave trade into Europe namely southern Europe in the 16th to the 18th century … this is a part of North African history that most North Africans don’t know about today… Arab slavery in Africa spanned north east and west Africa transporting Africans from Africa to Asia hence why there are African communities in Asia today … its was the first and most brutal form of slavery well into the 20th century and till this day it is practiced against African people today… eg in Libya Lebanon the the gulf states as well as in Yemen… the North African dna reveals very little ottoman dna its mainly Amazigh ans southern European from the North African slave trade….
Respected, From Pakistan, In my opinion physical Slavery is declining in real terms. Now it has multiple ways in today's life. Would appreciate if your valuable reply 1) Mental Slavery 2) In which category you recognise Footballers transfer from clubs to clubs ( Not a Glorify way of Slavery) 3) Development of Brands or Brands consciousness isn't a way of Slavery. 4) Officially declared brothel in Europe and everywhere isn't a form of Slavery + unofficial prostitution.
You are ignoring indebted slavery in your own country. Where peasants/ till the land for generation to pay the loan from their masters.
@a.abdulqadir9104 Respected Upto certain extent your assessment is correct. What will you call Loyalty to certain objectives/ brands isn't mental Slavery. You observe people have become Obsesse with many things. Psychologically they have become Slaves. Loyalty to football clubs is mental while keeping players under contract in which they can't move anywhere isn't Slavery. Humans behaviour for many products is another kind of mental Slavery. Unlimited things Unlimited examples.
Check Professor Gerald Horne
Thx. Please Which broadcast???
@@komiczaralso check John H. Clarke.
May he rest in power.
@@alexomar7464 Thx again.
Basil Davidson....... very prolific researcher and he had great love for Africa. / Dr. Diop of Senegal / Mbenga and so many others
Also Marcus Garvey Jr.
Much appreciated, what a wonderful conversation. Thank you.
We're happy you enjoyed it!