Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Triangular trade (view source)
Revision as of 14:04, December 1, 2008
, 14:04, December 1, 2008to AlanE
Please reconsider your position...it is a complete reversion of what has been unquestioned non-ideological historical orthodoxy; and there is more evidence '''for''' very heavy Europe-Africa trade than you can poke a stick at. Ghana's Parliament actually sits in a castle built as a trading post. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Please reconsider your position...it is a complete reversion of what has been unquestioned non-ideological historical orthodoxy; and there is more evidence '''for''' very heavy Europe-Africa trade than you can poke a stick at. Ghana's Parliament actually sits in a castle built as a trading post. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
==Denial of the triangular trade==
Alan, I think we have to consider what implications are generally drawn from the idea that there was a triangular trade based on Americans buying African slaves. I can think of two extremes, but I don't know enough to tell which is closer to the truth:
#White Americans are the worst people, because they bought slaves from Africa and exploited them terribly.
#Most Africans were enslaved by their own people or by Muslims, so the real villains are the uncivilized [[African tribes]] and the [[Islamic civilization]].
Can you help me find the middle ground between these extreme views? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)