Passionate about teaching social studies? Awesome. OER Project is an organization of educators, historians, curriculum experts, and learning scientists. We care passionately about making free, high-quality, social studies resources available to everyone.
Did Africans Sell Other Africans Into Slavery? One of the most unseemly manifestations of Black self-hatred is the often violently held belief that 500 years ago Africans sold other Africans into centuries of slavery. It is heard most often when a Negro feels the need to shield Whites and Jews from having to answer for their dominant role in the Black Holocaust. “It was Blacks who sold other Blacks,” says the Negro, “so we can not hold Whites responsible for a crime in which we participated.” And by that suspect reasoning, they dismiss out of hand 500 years of the most brutal and murderous history the planet has ever known. It is almost impossible to imagine a Jewish person saying anything similar: “Since there were Jews that financially supported Hitler, and Jews that were soldiers and officers in the Nazi army, and Jews that delivered other Jews to the concentration camps, I don’t want to hear about any Jewish Holocaust. We Jews helped Hitler!” The fact is, there actually were Jewish Nazis, and at least 77 Jews were officers in Hitler’s army, and a Jewish police force called the Judenrat was in charge of rounding up Jews for the death camps (they even had uniforms and star-of-David badges), but no Jew allows those facts to minimize the German responsibility for their people’s suffering. People who had no possible connection to the Jewish Holocaust-like the PALESTINIANS-must pay the price even before those Nazi-collaborating Jews. Only Blacks seem to have adopted a strange psychosis that exculpates the White perpetrator and blames the Black victim. But this internecine scapegoating wholly depends not just on a colossal ignorance of the historical facts but on the sleight-of-hand deceptions of White historians who seek racial advantage, not historical clarity. One must look very carefully at the charge of “Black”participation in the African slave trade, and as always the very best place to start is with The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. He described the method used by the European in his genocidal pursuit of free Black labor: “He goes into foreign lands of our people and the first thing he goes looking around for, with his green-blue eyes, just to get up to, is the woman, so that he can leave the seed of the devil there.” The first 15th-century Portuguese excursions into Africa prove The Messenger to be absolutely correct. The Portuguese “explorers” used forced breeding on the Africans, a tactic which targets the genetic foundation of the indigenous population. European invaders deliberately created mixed-race subgroups with the intention of using them to capture and enslave the native populations. This “new breed” would serve as a “ruling class” to control the massive numbers of African slave laborers required by the colonies, and further serve as a buffer zone between the White oppressor and his Black victims. In America, we have come to know them as “house niggers,” or “mammies,” or “uncle toms,” and they were most often the lighter-skinned slaves-the children born of the rape of the Black woman. Back in Africa, the horrific suffering and debasement of the Black woman had a very specific economic purpose. Arriving on the Cape Verde islands, about 350 miles off the coast of Senegal, Jewish slave merchants from Portugal in the mid-1400s sought to insert themselves in Africa’s commerce and trade. Just as The Messenger described, they kidnapped and raped African women, and the mixed-race offspring, called lancados, were raised on the island as European Jews, practicing Judaism and respecting Jewish authority. These lancados then were sent into the African mainland to set up an international “trading post” in the fine fabrics being produced by the Africans. But soon they turned on their hosts and began trading in Black human beings. The lancados literally were trained by their Jewish fathers to be slave traders-trained in the Jewish family business of slave-dealing. It was these half-breed, mixed-race (or mulatto) “half-ricans” who infiltrated the Black African communities, seeking to satisfy the European lust for Black labor. Because of their African blood admixture, deceptive White propagandists call these mixed-race Jewish slave traders “Africans”; Blacks view them, rightly, as Europeans, given their racial and cultural distance from African society and its practiced norms of thousands of years. One scholar was clear: “The offspring of these lancados and African women were called Jilhos de terra and were generally considered to be Portuguese.” Historian Walter Rodney described these “AFRICAN” slave traders thus: “Many of the private traders were mulattoes, already linked to the Africans by blood, and there were those who had become so integrated into African life that they wore tribal tattoos. It was these who were the authentic lancados, literally ‘those who had thrown themselves’ among the Africans.” Even Christopher Columbus was involved in the early slave trade and learned his skills as a sailor on the African coast. The Messenger referred to him as a “half-original man,” meaning he had African and European blood. Jewish scholars such as Simon Wiesenthal, Cecil Roth, and Tina Levitan are adamant about Columbus’ Jewishness. One might easily conclude that the notorious explorer was one of these lancados. It is probably during his slave-dealing on coastal Africa that he heard of a “New World” overseas from African mariners, who had been visiting the Americas for thousands of years (see Dr. Ivan Van Sertima’s They Came Before Columbus). And if Columbus were not such an important part of the American (White) self-image-and if more people knew that he trafficked in African slaves and Indians (600 of whom he enslaved and brought to Europe)-he would probably be labeled an “African” slave trader as well. Once they muscled into monopoly positions in trade, the lancados brought in European weapons to foment strife and wars between African tribes. This led to massive disruptions of African societies and the displacement of whole populations, as the transfer of captives, fueling the traffic in African human beings. This leads us to the important question of whether or not the “selling” of human beings was understood by the African tribal leaders to mean the kind of unspeakable cruelty and lifelong multi-generational bondage that Blacks experienced in the West. The answer is an emphatic NO! The labor systems practiced throughout the world for millennia (apprenticeship, peasantry, serfdom, indentureship, feudalism, tenant farming, sharecropping, etc.) had never had the dehumanizing commercial features that were a distinctive part of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Its horrifying brutality on a massive scale is entirely unique. The term slavery itself has been strategically corrupted to include every labor system, no matter the nature of it or its severity. For instance, in some “slave” systems the “slave” had full legal rights and could negotiate the terms of his labor, including the time and compensation; some “slaves” could sue in court and could inherit property; some could ultimately take over their master’s business and even marry the master’s daughter. In one so-called slave society, it was believed that “when one gains a slave, he gains a son.” The “slave” had to eat and sleep in the same manner as the master. Even the Biblical story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his own brothers resulted in a “slave” becoming the most powerful man in Egypt next to Pharaoh. NONE of these humane features characterized slavery in the Americas! The variety of slavery that developed in the isolation of the sugar islands off the African coast was entirely unprecedented and unknown. It was a new, dark element that injected medieval monstrosities into an agrarian culture of farmers that had never seen such atrocities before the European lancado invasion. It was a true slavery, a horrific slavery, under which its victims had no rights and no hope-by design. So the “African” slave traders who “sold us out,” upon closer examination were actually half-European by blood and totally European by mentality. Our African spirit of welcoming every people regardless of color made the African people vulnerable to this wicked “half-original” incursion, and we have been paying a high price for it ever since.
There was some principalities and seigniories but they were not independent exactly because Byzantium was the ruler of that region and the Armenians were subject to Byzantium. The first Armenian deportation was carried out by Byzantium in 1020s and the Armenians in Van were sent to inner Anatolia and the Armenians faced with a lot of oppression due to denominational differences.This is why Armenians were at daggers drawn with Byzantians, in fact, until 1071 when Turks literally arrive at Anation, four Armenian principalities were laid low by Byzantium personally. In short, Armenians were not an independent folk. And interestingly, the big top independency was brought by Turks. Beforehand Alp Arslan concluded an agreement with David the Armenian king whom he protected. Later on, in the reign of Melikshah, Armenians were released from a quite amount of tax. Basically, since the time of Seljuq and later on the establishment of Ottoman Empire, even the reign of Othman, Armenians and Turks were living in amity. Additionaly, not only the Armenian patriarchate Havakin was officially recognized immediately, but also in the reign of Fatih, the Armenian patrician was invited to İstanbul and a new patriarchate in Galata was established. So that Armenians could live quite free, privileged and had religious freedom in the times of Ottoman and Seljuq. Armenians were also exempted from military service and were allowed to be assigned to important seats in government, for that matter they are named for “millet-i sadıka” meaning “faithful nation.” And when examined, it is seen that until 1800s, Turks and Armenians were living peacefully up to the hint. However, as time passes, when Ottoman started to die down, and the seats that Greeks left were given to Armenians, especially when various consulates and clerkships mostly were controlled by Armenians, which this hegemony reached its climax in the time of Ali Pasha, Armenians meant to gradually get rid of Turks and surround themselves with their relatives and cognates. It can be seen even today. When a man becomes a minister, a mp or a mayor, he starts to surround himself with all his acquaintances. Armenians in Ottoman era did the same thing. However, due to the fact that Armenian faith and Ottoman faith which is islam confronted, the rift appeared in time. Whereas, Armenians, in a way, managed to survive thanks to Turks. if it were not for Turk eponyms; Ottoman and Seljuq, the name of Armenians due to the outrage of Byzantium and Europe would stay in history books at its best. Yet, even the reason behind the establishment of Armenia was to object to Ottoman. We are talking about an Armenian meinie who gave 40 piastre tax annually, were not called for military service, had liberty of trade and of religion, were conferred on barraty, so to speak, living way more easefully than Turks in Ottoman lands. So, how did everything get to be this way? That’s pretty cliche. First- propaganda; Second- nationalism. In the nineteenth century, nationalism became widespread meaning that everyone wanted to have an autonomous identity. Because Ottoman became so weak that foreign forces wanted to divide, split the Ottoman Empire and take the benjamin’s portion, which it was seen even in WWI. The French in Mediterranean, in east the Russian, the Greek in Aegean and in İstanbul and in its round the British, in short, different nations occured on all sides of the country and they eventually started to fight with each other to have the biggest slice of the cake. And it’s a process, i mean that before the WWI, Ottoman was gradually divided throughout one hundred years, having lost lands in all regions, some revolts occured and the folk, solidly grew away from being a subject of Ottoman. After all, because a Christian community living in an islamic georaphy was in the question, no matter if they had benefit from that or not, many countries tried their hands at that under the disguise of “brotherhood in Christ.” The projects started in the eighteenth century. Primarily, France sent some missionisers to catholicise Armenians and then with the interferences by other countries, approximately ten percent of armenians became protestant. So, Armenians splitted among themselves, therefore they could not correspond with Ottoman since they could not achieve unity even among themselves. Armenians firstly became an enemy for Ottomans and then with the fire of nationalism, they want to build a country of their own. Of course, it had occured through that hundred-year time lapse. As i have stated before, there was a plenty of battles, revolts or contributions carried out behind the curtain. Exempli gratia, the city of Erivan where was possessed by Iran was conquered by Russians in the time of Russian-Persian war in 1829 and tzar Nicola the First made a statement by saying “This incident is the day when the Armenians’ independence.” Since that day, a new correlation between Russians and Armenians has started to be made and that relation was based on the hostility towards Ottoman and this idea has been imposed in every chance.
For example, between circa 1853 and 1856, after the battle between Russia and Ottoman; Russia, though used to use the term “Asia of Turkey”, after the Paris Conference in 1856, started to use the term “Armenia” whereas there was neither such country nor Ottoman had lost that regions, so they were talking about a non-existed country and imposed the idea of a probable country in the future on the society. With this fire, they worked hand-in-hand with Russia, Britain and other countries. That was not consist only of sharing a few maps or making up countries such as Armenia or Kurdistan. After the Edict of Reform in 1856, Robert College and American College of Merzifon and this kind of schools started to impose some ideas such as Ottoman hatred, Armenian nationalism on society even when in primary school age. Teachers propagandized with insistances as “Ottomans made a massacre, they mow down Armenians, if it were not for Ottoman, there would be a great country called Armenia but Ottoman forestalled.” The generation was bred up to such ideologies, when they were old enough to have adequately important seats in 1890s-1900s, it was inevitable that they would like to actualize these ideas. 1800s was very tough for Ottoman. Almost in every trench there was either a revolt or was against another country. When it was 1877, the outbreak of a war (Russo-Turkish war) - which we call “93 Harbi”* (War of 93) - in Balkans and Caucasia to achieve Panslavism by Russians made everything even worse. Because Ottoman had lost the war and had to ask for peace. Russians could make towards Istanbul after Plevne had been occupied. The war ended in 31th of January in 1878 with the armistice in Edirne and the peacetalks that paved the way for the Treaty of San Stefano also known as treaty of Yeşilköy had been given a start. So to say, these talks were not so beneficial for Ottoman Empire. Moreover, during these discussions, Armenian patriarch Nerses Variabedyan and some Armenian leaders had negotiated with the grand duke Nikolai, tzar’s brother and managed to have them add an article about Armenians to the treaty. Consequently, the name of Armenians, first time in the history, is used in an official concordat and that was the first step toward the autarchy.However, this treaty was just on paper, not actualised because England foresaw that, by this treaty, Russia became over-powerful and demanded a new conference, which it didn’t acted just as a demand. Then Britain not only sent an armada to Istanbul but also having accorded with Austria (Oesterreich) then massed a lot of soldiers to the Danube region. So, Russia was not sufficient for a second war so it had to accept the conference. Of course, Britain didn’t take Ottoman under its wings just for favour. In the meantime, Britain had some exclusive privileges behind the curtain. For example, Britain achieved the right to engarrison in Cyprus and to make reforms about the Armenians living in Ottoman lands and permitted them over-freedom. But in the meantime Armenians were not unactive. In 17th of March, 1878, Variabedyan patriarch negotiated with Layard, ambassador of England and said if Britain supports, Armenian community is ready to rebel and decisive to establish a new Armenia. Because of that, in the Congress of Berlin which was gathered on behalf of the treaty of San Stefano, Bismark welcomed Armenians and get along with them, as well as other European countries supported Armenians. That was so tragic for Ottoman because Ottoman made the disreputation “the sick man” in those congregations. The whole world saw that Ottoman was being divided, laid low, disappeared and couldn’t even have the right to sepak in its own land about its own vassals. In 1880 when Gladstone became the prime minister of England, conflicts reached the peakpoint. Gladstone dealed with the Armenian issue to start with and in June of 1880, in tandem with the six nations, he wanted reforms to be made with Armenians in the east of Anatolia by sending a diplomatic note to Sublime Porte. After that interference of Gladstone, Armenians raised to the bait even more and resorted to terror by organizing gangs. As an example, Hunchakian which means “jingle” and Tashnag (flag) parties are the most popular ones. Armenians, all over the board of the country, started to organize gangs, assault the society and the soldiers, and by letting out a yell of “Armenia” they terrorized. Additionally, whenever Ottoman quenched and intervene, it is launced as “murdered” in the West. “Ottoman kills Armenians, attacks Christians!” These sort of news were always reported and the society was provoked against Ottoman. For example, in August of 1894, in Sason region in Bitlis Province, Armenians rebelled and slaughtered innocent people, then commenced fire, even gunfighted with the soldiers and when Ottoman quelled the revolt, all the West media published such fake news like “Ottoman is the murderer, Armenians are the wronged!” but no one talked about the slaughtered Turks and Muslims. Because there was a need for excuse, and on the plea of this, some countries -Britain particularly- send a memorandum to Ottoman for reforms on Armenians and them being more free, even free of any restrictions. However, Ottoman couldn’t agree with them and did reject the plan. And then, with the provacations of all these countries, Armenians effervesced even more and in Bitlis, Erzurum, Muş, Sivas and other regions, they started to revolts all around the country simultaneously. Thereby, in a time lapse of one year, there had been 25 revolts and all of them were to establish an independent Armenia. And Ottoman had neither time nor patience to fight against them diplomatically. Due to the fact that in the 18th of April in 1897, Greco-Turkish War broke out, afterwards, some problems occured around the near east, in the lands of Arabs. Here, during the unionist revolution and then the first world war, Ottoman was in a position so that no matter what they did, they would go wrong. Until 1915, there was 40 revolts in total. In short, deportation was not a sudden decision. After all these incidents, Ottoman either give up on 20 or 30 cities and say “take them, all done, do whatever you want to!” or scramble, which there was no chance of giving lands for free and for dividing the country. If you do so, tomorrow or any other day, Laz people, Kurds, Balkanians, Arabs, other minorities would want to establish their own country. WWI was there, we -Ottomans- were already under occupation and losing lands, on the other hand, when armenians started to revolt and make troubles, Ottoman had to set the seal on the issue. One should speculate, in 1895 a crowded Armenian group marched towards Sultanahmet with the guidance of the patriarch İzmirliyan, protested and around the same time, Ottoman bank was raided by Armenian gangs. Moreover, according to the written sources, many from the folk, i mean civilians were killed by the bombs of Armenians and additionally, they even committed to assassinate Abdulhamid who was the Sultan.
Those incidents did not appear suddenly, dear fellows, i mean if we are to speak of the emigration or so-called genocide, it’s a requirement that the background should also be understood because in the world maps that was published in that time, the West marked the east of Ottoman as “Armenia.” So to say, though the country was not splitted, they cut away the half of the land. That obviously was a provocation, a threat. If you check even only the treaty of Yeniköy made in 8th of February in 1914, it’ll be enough. This is such a project that you divide the country as from Diyarbakır and make the region totally autarchical with foreign governors and inspectors. So, Ottomans gets divided into provinces. Having been not fought yet, Ottoman was already divided.And the worst part of it, if it were not for WWI, that plan could have been actualized. The outbreak of the war shot the project’s fox. Afterwards, similar bargains were offered to Damat Ferid Pasha like one hundred times but due to the War of Independence lead by Atatürk, they had failed again. I mean, regardless of if Ottoman was divided or not, Western countries had already the intention of establishing an Armenian and they would make no secret of it. Armenians, with the fire of that, continued to revolt and carried out acts of terror even more. Through the Battle of Gallipoli* Armenian gangs still attacked on people. Consequently, Ottoman, with a ‘all-or-none’ principle, made a radical decision. That’s just much more the case. So, the people were send from there to somewhere else, the aim was to break the unity and to prevent probable revolts. At that time, there were ones who fight against, attack, threaten with weapons, tease and make troubles, so some of them were killed but according to the West, they act as if the whole Armenian society were slaughtered, meaning that it’s claimed that a literal genocide occured and all the Armenians were killed completely.However, that’s a slander. There’s a strict difference between forcing people to immigrate and extinguish them completely. But when you look at the diaspora, they claim that one and a half million armenians were killed. Worst part of it is that people are buying this and when you deny it, they declare you anti-human immediately. And of course, as from 24 of April, some of the Armenian leaders were arrested and sent to detention camps but none of them were killed in this moment, moreover, most of the ones who sent, came back to Istanbul. To give details, Deportation Law consisted of four articles: Article First: In wartime, if the army commanders and corps and party headmans and their attorneys and independent rank commanders, witness to any hostility and trangession with weapons and resistance by the community in any sort of way,“against the actions and the arrangements that aim to maintain the orders from government, public order and defence of the country, are allowed and obligated to reciprocate with military forces in a most violent way; and in any offense and resistance situation, to neutralisation.” Meaning that the soldiers were free to use their weapons when obliged. Article Second: “Army and corps and party commanders, due to the military requirements, when sense espionage or infidelity, can transfer people on a single basis or en masse to the other districts.” Meaning that by the government, commanders were given the right to relocate the ones whom they suspected to somewhere else. Article Third: This law is valid since it’s publication. Article Fourth: The commander-in-chief and the ministry of war are the responsible for the validity of the judge. I decided on the enforcement and the pass of this temporary resolution by the seats in charge to be reported in the meeting of the general assembly of the parliament. Hear me, i’m telling again; deportation is just having a group of people move from a place to another, of course during that there were ones who attacked to, pull a gun on the soldiers and resisted and kill and also killed but the law is crystal-clear. Yes, that’s a saddening incident, a whole group of people was relocated with all their belongings but just two years ago from that time, in Balkan Wars, Turks also went through the same thing. Turks in Balkan had to emigrate because the land was lost. So, in wartime, these things can be happen. That’s understandable. And when they attempt to revolt and stage a coup and collaborate with the enemy, the right of them to complain and to cry is only possible in the fictional novels. Because the government primarily have to protect its own continuity. There is no any other possible solution, or anything else to do. I do not accuse them with phoniness, they were revealed already later on. For example, some documents claimed as gotten from the Ottoman lands in Syria were shared by commander Allenby and it was claimed that in those documents, Ottoman gave a direct order to practice genocide. But later on it was revealed that such a document does not exist and these documents, let alone them gotten by Allenby in Syria, they actually appeared in France. Armenian Nationalist Federation in Paris prepared a report by themselves. Addition to that, he made a lot of statements about the Armenian genocide assertions in 31 December of 1919, 27 Dec. Of 1920 and in 1 March of 1922 and stated that that’s a project of the British and when some provinces such as Bitlis and Van are used to establish Armenia, the authority of England will gain vigor in the Near East and that is the main purpose.The ones who read Nutuk already knows that. Additionally, it should be stated that in 24 March of 1915, with the help of Russia, approximately 2300 terrorists were caught from the federations such as Ramgavar, Halas, Towards Armenia and Dark Cross. The Armenians who revolted and tried to stage a coup and practiced terrorism muust be brought to book for that. In short, the gangs. Because what Ottoman did was a self-defense. 100 Turks in ‘Zeitun Resistance’ in 1914, 3 thousand Turks in “Defense of Van” in 1915 and 20 thousand Turks in Muş in 1914-1915 lost their lives.
Armenians, since the revolt in Erzurum in 1890, attempted to revolt so many times but failed. When failed, the cruel piling on the agony is just being hypocrite. Zeve village of Van was completely slaughtered by Armenians without making any discrimination for women, children, elders and Armenians joined the Russian army with 15 thousand enlistee just to batte against the Ottoman, even there were tens of them considering their own wives and children as hindrances and sent them to Erivan. Ottoman did what was needed to be done. And, if Ottoman was that anti-Armenian, then why in that time there was two Armenian congressman in Ottoman Council? This also should be questioned. Minister of foreign affairs Gabriyel Noradukyan and Oscar Efendi was also Armenian. How could they be oppressed and be deputies? How Bashruyan who studied law with the opportunities from Ottoman could be appointed to the chairmanship of the penalty department ? How could Kirkor Zohrac be appointed to the parliament of Istanbul and Hallaçyan to the public works ministry? By the way, Hasruyan whom i just mentioned advocated an Armenian called Torlatyan who killed the minister of internal affairs Cevanshir Han in 1921. Again, the councellor of Mustafa Reşid Pasha who was one of the leading figures of Reform, was an Armenian named Agop Gırçıkyan. However, saddening part is that some armenians who were appointed to the parliamentarianship in Ottoman such as Noradukyan, as soon as the WWI had broken out, left the country and demanded to establish Armenia from countries like France. Consequently, tragic events happened and the deportation didn’t leave good memories in minds. People died, starved, relocated but eventually, it was an obligation. No one is happy or proud of it, or say “we did a great job!” We just had to and that’s it. It’s seen that Armenian side of the dispute shares some skull, skeleton and bone pictures and say “look how many people did the murderer Turks kill!” but it’s unknown if they were killed as innocent people or gangster or not or killed in a gunfight. Nowadays we are bombing PKK encampments. What we are gonna do?Apologize? Of course not. We are not gonna say “Aww, what a pity, wish we hadn’t done that” or something like that. The deportation was the consequence of a long-lasted hostileness and the hostile side isn’t the Ottoman. Unfortunately, that’s the truth. Lastly I wanna end my history class with a book quote from Armenia's first president Ovannes Kaçaznuni, "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) has Nothing to do Anymore": "The deportations and mass exiles and massacres which took place during the Summer and Autumn of 1915 were mortal blows to the Armenian Cause. Half of historical Armenia -“ the same half where the foundations of our independence would be laid according to the traditions inherited by European diplomacy -" that half was denuded of Armenians: the Armenian provinces of Turkey were without Armenians. The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret today. It was the most decisive method of extirpating the Armenian Question from Turkey". Resources below; Erdal İlter, "Ermeni Meselesi’nin Perspektifi ve Zeytûn İsyânları(1780-1915)", 2.basım. Ankara 1995, s. 23 Erdal İlter, "Ermeni Meselesi'nin Doğuşunda ve Gelişmesinde İngiltere'nin Rolü", OTAM, Sayı: 6, Ankara 1995, s. 160 Mehmet Kocaoğlu, "Millet-i Sadıka'dan Ermeni Mezalimine", Avrasya Dosyası, C. 2, S. 4, Sonbahar 1995-1996 , s.114 ATASE, Arşiv Belgeleriyle Ermeni Faaliyetleri, 1914-1918, Ankara, 2005, 1. Cilt, s.439-444. Dr. Recep Karakaya, Ermeni Meselesi. Kronoloji ve Kaynakça, Gökkubbe, İstanbul, 2005, sah: 415. Kâmuran Gürün, "Ermeni Dosyası", TTK, 3. bas. Ankara 1985, s.47. Harika Yamak, "Atatürk ve Ermeni Soykırımı Yalanı", Yılmaz Kitabevi, 2015. Ermeni, Yahudi, Rum Asıllı Milletvekilleri, Süleyman Yeşilyurt, Kültür-Sanat Yayınları, 10. Baskı. Murat Bardakçı, "Talât Paşa'nın Evrak-ı Metrûkesi", Everest Yayınları, 1. Basım, Aralık 2008. Dr. Recep Karacakaya, "Kaynakçalı Ermeni Meselesi Kronolojisi", T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, Yayın Nu:52, İstanbul, 2001. Halide Edib Adıvar'ın Maliye Nazırı Cevad Bey'e Beyrut'dan Gönderdiği Mektup, Beyrut, Dârü'l-Muallimât, 1 Mart 1917 Osman Olcay, Sevr Antlaşmasına Doğru, Konferans ve Toplantı Belgeleri, Ankara Üni. SBF Yayınları, 1981, s.24. Yusuf Halaçoğlu, "Sürgünden Soykırıma Ermeni İddiaları", 7. Baskı, Babıali Kültür Yayıncılığı, 2008. Bilal Şimşir, Şehit Diplomatlarımız, Bilgi Yayınevi, Ankara, 2000, 2. Cilt. Azmi Süslü, "Ermeniler ve 1915 Tehcir Olayı", Ankara 1990, s.24 Hakimiyet-i Milliye, 13 Kasım 1920.
Please revisit your history, your Omani Empire was at its height in Southern East African coast (modern day Mozambique, Tanzania Kenya) when Somalia already had an established Sultanate called Ajuran and Adal Sultanate. They did not have any control nor gain over the Somali territories in fact we were in war against the Portuguese Empire at this time of history. I kindly ask you educate yourself on this false narrative that you hold, thank you very much :)
I think I learned Something New And I never thought about it before Why is the world population so divided over their imagination and belief how strange is it although we all live on one planet on earth.
The Armenian genocide denial card: -It didn't happened -it was a deportation -the Turks were killed too -Armenians sided with the Russians -Armenian gangsters were lynching Turks -But what about that genocide?
The Omanis ran the centuries long East African Slave Trade. Millions of black African men, women and children were trafficked from the interior of Africa to Zanzibar and then transported into a life of barbaric slavery to the Gulf and wider Indian Ocean. By the time the British got to Zanzibar 50,000 Black men, women and children were passing through Omani run slave markets every year. One incredibly gruesome fact about the Omani run East African Slave Trade was that the males were routinely castrated. The British implored the Omani Sultans of Zanzibar to stop the Slave Trade, but they did not. As a result the British decided to take over Zanzibar. In 1964 just after the British left Zanzibar, the local Black Africans fearful of a return to Omani Arab rule massacred the Omani Arab population of Zanzibar.
Crazy to think of all the pain, suffering, and subjugation that has happened in he name of a religion some guy came up with centuries ago, and how so many follow it blindly simply because those before them did so as well.
I love big history (have read both of David Christian's big history books many times), but I wish it wasn't so human-centric. We are not the center of the Universe or even the Earth, we are a part of a chapter in the big story. It is as if it's assumed that we humans can't be much interested in a story where we aren't the lead characters and the climax of the story. Evolution leads to ... primates ... which leads to us... and then everything is about us. Yes we matter, but there are so many other species & their stories, and the planet & biosphere isn't about us
For every single negative that is attributed to nationalism can those same negatives not be found in histories of places all over the world prior to nationalism taking hold? Territorial disputes existed prior to nations did they not? Conflicts between religious and ethnic groups existed prior to nations did they not? Organized warfare has a long and history tradition as soon as nation states took hold so we know that that was there and all the atrocity that goes along with it. The history of Judaism seems to be ripe with conflict historically with their neighbors, no matter where they’re at and to say that nationalism is the reason that they had the problems they did seems a bit disingenuous. I am not a history, major by any means, but from the understanding that I have, it seems like all of these behaviors were present prior to nationalism. If there’s some thing I’m missing here please fill in the gaps of understanding.
You miss an important point… why ottomans started to see Armenians as a treat after 800 peaceful years? And you also forgot to mention Armenian tashnak paramilitary activities and massacres in the region by the help of Russians to weaken Turkish possession in the region….
