There were algerian kingdoms and I think the name Algeria came from the regency of Algier, but yeah back then there was no common algerian identity it was all mostly tribes, France united them all under the Algerian departments who are now current Algeria
The FLN wasn't the sweetest either in that regard, they killed many innocents, especialy Algerian civilians just so they could accuse France of doing it.
"the love to say that they are the descendants of the Numidian people" well, isn't that true? Considering that Numidians were the North African Amazigh and the current population of Algeria is majority Amazigh?
The trade even went up the Rhône river which flows into the Mediterranean. The Arab feluccas were much more agile and faster than the heavy French stripes.
As for those captured, women and children were sold as slaves. The men were directed to emasculation camps in the south of France, hence the region's name "les Maures et l'Estérel"; in Corsica, hence the Moor's head on the Corsican flag; and in Sardinia, I believe.
After which they were sold as slaves in North Africa.
The Barbary activity was made for Jihad. It was an explicit goal to enslave christians because they were the ennemies of Allah and where hallal to grab by the Hadiths and Quran itself. So absolutely no point in common with the transatlantic trade who was made purely on pragmatical ground. What could be known as " christian slavery " is the Méditerranean slave trade where Muslims were taken by Spain and Portugal as was their prerogative given by the Pope in 1454 in response to Islamic invasions.
But still this is not the same as taking people in slavery for the reson that it will non only make you mony but also will make Allah happy.
You seem to forget the fact that europeans would convert the ppl they enslaved to christianism while keeping them as slave.
Their argument was that God made europeans superior to rule and Black ppl to work.
Both built their exploitation around theologic argument.
In fact it's the opposite, most of the christianisation of the slaves were from outside insentives and not inside forced conversion. Mostly people preaching to slaves at their arrival or after.
The only justification was for a long time that they were not christians ( the thing you say about " superiority of the Europeans on Black people is anachronistic and is a raced based theory that would become important only in the late 18 th century ( malediction of sham... ) ). In many places slavery had no other justification than purely economic ones. Places like ST Domingue were slaved-based ecnomy were the class of people ruling the place wouldn't be at all interested into ending the slave trade just because their slaves became christians.
But more and more the concern of the " christian slaves " became an important talking point and a threat to slavery. The first abolitionnists were christan humanists who thought that Slavery was inherently bad and that enslaving christians is a terrible sin even if they weren't prior.
This led to slave owners preventing their slaves to become christians. It was very common in the south of the US and other places. If christianity was inherently pro slavery why would the slavers prevent them from hearing about it and why slavers were the less religious people at the time. It is estimated that only one out of then large slave owner was affiliated to a church in the early 19 th century. So it seems that secularism whas one of the way slavers tried to avoid abolitionnism.
The difference between the christians and the Muslims is that one is a post-hoc interpretation and the second is an explicit goal. It's like if someone rob you because he hates you and one who rob you for your mony and then say that is was justified by the fact you are rich or anything else ...
March 28 , 1786, letter by John Addams and Thomas Jefferson to John Dey on the matter of the diplomats send to the Dey of Tripoli in the 1870s.
“We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
The Barbary slave was litterally a Jihad, they took prisoners for the sake of Allah and when they were slain they went straight to paradise because they were shahids.
Surah 47-35 " So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds."
There is only peace in Islam when they are weak. And at the time it was the case. Islam is in an eternal war against all the disbelievers and Barbary slave raids were only a little part in that. The most important ones being the conquests of the Ottomans ...
It had nothing to do with Religion. Or do you really want to tell me that there was no Christian slave trade or piracy? Let religion out of this. Just bad humans doing bad things no matter what religion
How is that ironic ? France was one of the only power that at somepoint fought slavery, weren't they ? Fought feodalism in Europe and prohibited slavery in Africa, France and the UK are the main reasons slavery was abolished in most of the world
France did questionable things in Algeria and throughout all their colonies. The Indigenate Code clearly established a social apartheid in these territories, where locals could be submitted to forced work like building railroads and stuff, this same code permitting physical abuse of locals by the French Army. In Algeria specifically, many verified stories (check historian Benjamin Stora) of the French Army chasing resisting villagers into cave systems and starting fires in the entrances to suffocate locals(check Dahra smokings by General Bugeaud, ~1000 casualties, fighters, children or women). The French doctrine, "bridges,roads,hospitals", didn’t hold its promises since a massive proportion of the Algerian population was wiped out. So yes, France abolished slavery at some point, yes it ended barbaric slavery practices by North African tribes, but no France isn’t the saint in this story, as many many historians confirm
I did not say France acted as a saint. But I still don't see how it could be ironic that one of the countries that fought slavery the most would abolish the barbaric slavery
That’s not the point that was suggested by the previous post ! The irony wasn’t to portray France as the savior from slavery, but the savior period. Ok maybe under French govt it may have been slightly better, but France (and I say it as a French) didn’t step up to any basic moral value expected for such a moralist country. So yeah it’s ironic bc we substituted for slavery and inhumane practices for forced work and legal inhumane practices…
Now you have none, and you will never do what you did before. Burkina Faso is showing you how things will proceed.
Go back to your country and stop having wet dreams over something that will never happen again, especially by you. A watered down version of your colonialist, barbaric, and rapist ancestors.
I bet you are arabic, and to no ones surprise it is your people who are forcing themselves to europe, and on top of it, it is also your ancestors who loved to enslave everywhere they went and push for their beliefs. You are not better than any descendant of colonialists.
Every time someone says something good about European history, a progressive lefty empty head pops up with "muh.... racism" "muh.... war crimes" "muh.... colonialism" "muh.... imperialism". While if a history of any non-Western nation is criticized this way (especially Middle Eastern or African nation) he screams - THAT'S RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!
We are talking about the colonial conquest of Algeria on this thread bro. There are a lot of cool things about european history during this period and others, colonialism isnt one of them
You're not saying something good about European history, just that somehow this proves we had balls. There was very little to say in favour of the conquest of Algeria, it was conquest for the sake of conquest which was financially and militarily ruinous for France. The only good that came from it is that it favoured the July revolution which led to the abdication of the King.
I think the modern left views it as justified when done by non-whites to whites. They see it as "justice". They don't necessarily view it as good, but try to rationalize it. Take Gaza for example, when asked how could they justify the massacre done by Hamas on Oct 7, they answer: "what could you expect after oppressing people, blah blah blah".
Colonialism is in principle hardly different from any other conquest. The question whether it's justified or not is irrelevant. It just happened. Just like Arab conquests of the VII-IX century happened, just like Ottoman conquests happened. Were they justified? It's a stupid question to ask.
It definitely is. But the left wants to perpetuate the inescapable sense of guilt in the West, that's why it tries to present the West as exceptionally cruel, exceptionally aggressive, exceptionally racist, etc.
It definitely is not. The fact those are two different words with different context and meaning. Especially referring to this post. I suggest you start there and look more into it.
And an equal number of North Africans was enslaved and sold at European slave markets in places like Livorno and Malta, slavery was practiced by BOTH sides. Unlike their European counterparts, they were almost never ransomed.
That's actually not true, because obviously there was private ransoms but the vast majority of the work was done by the Catholic Church. So in many cases the statut wasn't important at all. You can check the Chrurch's records if you want to go deeper in that.
1 ) . They were ensalved mostly by Spain, Malta and Portugal, this was a right given to them by the Pope in 1454 in direct response to the Islamic permanent jihad against christianity and in a try to make insentives to fight the Ottomans and Moors. So this " both side " is bulshit, also a large part of thoses slaves were taken from the Barbary pirates themselves.
2 ) Why they were never ransomed ?? Because absolutely no one cared about them, really no one. The difference is that the Church paid to take back a lot of the slaves. At the difference of the Muslims rulers who doesn't give a damn about their population. They didn't cared. And if it involved any Mony would not do anything.
There is reports of missives between the ruler of Alger and the Papal states in the 17 th century about a dispute over cimetaries but never was it mention of playing to free thoses slaves.
3) The Barbary slavers went up to North America, sacked New York !!!! Did america ever sold or take any slaves in North Africa. No ! This was made purely for the Jihad against chirstiandom.
4) The christians actually put an end to slavery while the Muslims had to be forced to stop it.
Saïd Mohammedi is not the only one and you could literally have found him with a 5 second search but it could have changed your worldview so you avoided it.
Justifying the colonization of Algeria and the at least 150 years of barbarism throughout the territory, including nuclear tests with populations that were absolutely not consulted, you really have to do it, guys, it's and re-justify everything on top of that as a fight against the Nazis, it's really clever, guys, you're right 🥴
Your post or comment was removed for imperialism or denialism. Please ensure you understand our rules. If you continue to violate them you will be excluded from participating in this community.
On 5 July 1830, the French army captured Algiers, marking the start of French colonial rule in Algeria. This event effectively brought to an end the major era of Barbary piracy and European-Christian slave-raiding from the North African coast that had been a feature of Mediterranean history for several centuries (roughly four to five centuries).
This war was further proof that the French were a dishonorable people. France borrowed money from Algeria and had food delivered. When Algeria demanded the money back, the French were offended and conquered the country.
This whole trade slave was well over when the French conquered Algeria.
And btw the "North African" slave traders were almost always white men who converted to Islam and became Salve raiders to make loads of money. That's basic history. So long for your "white people were the victims here" propaganda...
I never said that white slaves were not victims.
I said that white slaves were victims of mostly white slave raiders based in North Africa. That's history.
Cut the "all lives matter" bs we see clear through you. Your name is enough to have an idea of what kind of person you are.
Ok I need to clarify 2 points because this post and the comments here are a nest of ignorance and basic white nationalism.
1- Barbary slavery era was already well over when the French conquered Algeria.
This slave trade declined in the end of the 18th century and completely terminated in 1816-1818, 12-14 years before the conquest.
So long for your pro-colonial propaganda.
France did not invade Algeria because of slavery. It invaded Algeria because it owed a lot of money to the Algerian government after having bought Algerian wheat in masse during the Napoleonic Wars. And also because the French gouvernement wanted to restaure it's prestige towards the French population.
2- The French were not saviors in Algeria. They committed a genocide in Algeria and exterminated 1/3 of the population there to grab their land and break resistance. It is sick to read posts portraying this genocide as something positive.
Get some basic education for God's sake before you post stuff like that.
Fuck the Arab slave trade and the Barbary raids!!!
My family is from Porto Santo, almost everyone from that island were kidnapped and sold in the Magreb, only around 18 men and 7 women remained. I must have distant relatives in Algeria who don't know their own history of slavery and suffering, maybe even you.
900 people were kidnapped to Algiers in one raid alone.
Then you would know the majority of the pirates engaging in the slave trade were European renegades , and that does not justify the brutal occupation that France enacted on the North African population the majority of whom had nothing to do with the Barbary slave trade . But keep on justifying mass genocide u white supremacist
We are Mediterranean boy, stop seeing yourself as "the brown people" don't victimize yourself, grow some balls and see life ahead your politics, you were also colonized by Arab colonialism, you're not an Arab, you are Berber, remember that. And probably even my distant relative.
Looool what shit are you chatting? We are Afro Mediterranean’s , big distinction. we are definitely not the same, if we are so similar why is there such racist discourse surrounding North Africans in Europe . And again if you knew anything about the Arab conquest of North Africa you’d see that it was mostly administrative , to compare the two is disingenuous. The French came to colonise, they had a scorched earth policy , they dehumanised us and labelled us subhuman. France killed off 1/3rd of the population from 1830 - 1890, they massacred over 45,000 over the course of 3 days. Do not presume to tell me what I am , we are Arab , Berber and African.
look at the sub you're in. this post got recommended to me for some reason and I want to puke looking at these comments. the absolute worst kind of revisionism.
For too long we were divided by empires, there's a clear cultural continuum between Iberia and the Magreb, I am not French, I feel at home visiting the old city of Algiers, same for the old towns of Morocco, there's racism everywhere because of imperialism and religion, we lack to realize that we both come from the same tree and there's equal shares of both sides of the coast in each other, you cannot look at these girls (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=40Z_BlSXV0g) and say they don't look alike the ones from Portugal, Spain, Lebanon or southern Italy. We share so many things in common, in our culture, our food, our music, our wardrobe our technology, our common history, our traditional agriculture and pastoralism, and so many more. For too long we were divided and for too long we were slaves of foreign forces. We are not Arab, we are Iberian, Magrebi, Lebanese and much more. Specially the Iberians and the Magrebis is are the closest peoples, not the Arabs. Remember, you are not Arab, even if you only speak Arabic.
The last sentence voluntary ignore all the crimes commited by french army. Crimes admitted by the French officers themselves, and strongly criticized for their brutality in mainland France.
So, who really ends the barbary here ?
Yeah, this all justifies asphyxiating women, children and the elderly in caves. Do you believe we should be burned alive/gassed because of 500 years of French imperialism/colonialism/slavery?
He never said that it was justified. He just said that the conquest ended the barbary slave trade.
This had been going on for centuries with the Algerian regence frequently breaking off treaties between them and France, so that they could do their favorite past time.
The crimes commited by the French were typical of the time and were similar to the ones commited in other wars like the Spanish independence war or the war of the Vendée.
First, he litterally talks about demographics for justify the conquest and all the massacres.
Second, the atrocities were not as usual, and were critisized by many french during the conquest (even army officers).
Third and last, the fact that other massacres were typical doesnt mean we have to justify them, or ignore them.
I believe he is quoting the Algerian demographics because some people qualify the Algerian conquest as a genocide while it's clearely not.
The atrocities you mentionned were the enfumades. While those massacres where undeniably cruel, they had a military goal, as armed men were in those caves along with their families. Note that I am not endorsing them, I am just stating the facts.
Yes, I never said that, and it dont change anything. Plus, the people that were dont directly killed by the french soldiers are dead because of the consequencies of the invasion.
The demographics of any country say next to nothing about genocide. There are 10.000 Denge people, someone kills 1.000 over 2 years with genocidal intent, meanwhile in these 2 years 1.200 children are born. So the population grew, yet a genocide was committed.
Some genocides “”only”” resulted in the death of 5.000 people, out of millions.
Between 1/6 and 1/3 of the local population was killed. And even for the colonial standards of that time, the conquest was seen as barbaric. Many civilians were killed and entire vilages burned. What are you trying to say ? Historians and many contemporians of the time are agree on that point.
While you are right on the number of victims, the perpetuators are up to debate. While the French undeniably killed a lot of civilians, the Algerians resistance also killed their own for collaborating.
Also a lot of Historians attribute the death of the great famines to the french but forget that there were very similar famines at the same time in Tunisa and Morroco who were not colonized. Even in Europe there were still famine deaths at the time.
It was a violent famine, even compared to others. And once again, it dont change the fact that colonial policies are part of the origins of this famine, even if, as I said, they were not the only reasons.
And yes I know the works of Daniel Lefeuvre, but he is not the only historian and has a political agenda, even if he said the opposite.
It does not change the fact that the great majority of this famine victims where not due to the french. There were also a lot of famines in Algeria before the conquest and also in Europe at the same time like in Finland
Obviously all historians have a political agenda more or less. Daniel Lefeuvre grew up in the communist youth and was himself a repentant anti-colonialist. If he wrote his book it's because he was disgusted by the anti-republican and communautarism speeches.
Not disagreeing with you here on the atrocities commited by the French forces during the conquest and later occupation, I just want to point out the "Barbary" here refers to the Barbary coast where these pirates were from so it's not really the point here.
The post is about the conquest of Algeria, so pointing out the piracy point without anything else is quite strange in regard of all the conséquences it had !
Yes I know, I use the term « barbaric » to point out the crimes here.
And dont tell something you dont know about me. I’m waiting your counterarguments about the historical facts I said.
If you enjoy this type of content, consider joining our other communities:
r/Colonialism
r/AmericanEmpire
r/BelgianEmpire
r/BritishEmpire
r/DanishEmpire
r/DutchEmpire
r/FrenchEmpire
r/GermanEmpire
r/ItalianEmpire
r/PortugueseEmpire
r/SpanishEmpire
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
it was not Algeria in 1830
There were algerian kingdoms and I think the name Algeria came from the regency of Algier, but yeah back then there was no common algerian identity it was all mostly tribes, France united them all under the Algerian departments who are now current Algeria
That's not what the average algerian would tell you!
They love to say that they are the descendants of the numidian people and that Algeria exists since the antiquity!
The French also love to say that they are descendants of Gauls and that Charles Charlemagne was French that said.
Exactly and that's not completly false but not entirely true either, some nuance is needed!
[deleted]
That's what war is all about my friend.
The FLN wasn't the sweetest either in that regard, they killed many innocents, especialy Algerian civilians just so they could accuse France of doing it.
Correct 👍
And it was, after the departure of the French, a real genocide in terms of settling scores and revenge!
There was torture, yes. As the FLN could not be both at the mill and in combat, the French effort focused on the villages.
In cities, following suitcase bombs left in cafes and other public places, it is fireworks and local officials who are sought after.
Not false but not only...
[deleted]
Yeah, i agree, on the ethnical side at least !
In term of culture, Religion, social and societal construct etc... They have nothing to do with modern algerian + a lot of Algerian are Arab by blood!
Perhaps, yes, but the word Algiers did not exist.
"the love to say that they are the descendants of the Numidian people" well, isn't that true? Considering that Numidians were the North African Amazigh and the current population of Algeria is majority Amazigh?
By Barbary you mean Islamic slave trade and piracy.
Yeah.
[deleted]
Sorry "daisy" but the slavery must and has been stopped.
I'm not French.
Someone got triggered easily
So we can label the Transatlic trade as Christian slave trade too?
Yes we can because that's exactly what that is
Nah, that is white people doing slave trade.
What's the religion of these white people who engaged on slave trade?
Money
No, they were Christians. Stop denying obvious facts.
Also, yes. Sometimes, in black Africa, local tribes captured future slaves to sell them to slave traders.
The trade even went up the Rhône river which flows into the Mediterranean. The Arab feluccas were much more agile and faster than the heavy French stripes. As for those captured, women and children were sold as slaves. The men were directed to emasculation camps in the south of France, hence the region's name "les Maures et l'Estérel"; in Corsica, hence the Moor's head on the Corsican flag; and in Sardinia, I believe. After which they were sold as slaves in North Africa.
The Barbary activity was made for Jihad. It was an explicit goal to enslave christians because they were the ennemies of Allah and where hallal to grab by the Hadiths and Quran itself. So absolutely no point in common with the transatlantic trade who was made purely on pragmatical ground. What could be known as " christian slavery " is the Méditerranean slave trade where Muslims were taken by Spain and Portugal as was their prerogative given by the Pope in 1454 in response to Islamic invasions. But still this is not the same as taking people in slavery for the reson that it will non only make you mony but also will make Allah happy.
You seem to forget the fact that europeans would convert the ppl they enslaved to christianism while keeping them as slave. Their argument was that God made europeans superior to rule and Black ppl to work.
Both built their exploitation around theologic argument.
In fact it's the opposite, most of the christianisation of the slaves were from outside insentives and not inside forced conversion. Mostly people preaching to slaves at their arrival or after. The only justification was for a long time that they were not christians ( the thing you say about " superiority of the Europeans on Black people is anachronistic and is a raced based theory that would become important only in the late 18 th century ( malediction of sham... ) ). In many places slavery had no other justification than purely economic ones. Places like ST Domingue were slaved-based ecnomy were the class of people ruling the place wouldn't be at all interested into ending the slave trade just because their slaves became christians. But more and more the concern of the " christian slaves " became an important talking point and a threat to slavery. The first abolitionnists were christan humanists who thought that Slavery was inherently bad and that enslaving christians is a terrible sin even if they weren't prior. This led to slave owners preventing their slaves to become christians. It was very common in the south of the US and other places. If christianity was inherently pro slavery why would the slavers prevent them from hearing about it and why slavers were the less religious people at the time. It is estimated that only one out of then large slave owner was affiliated to a church in the early 19 th century. So it seems that secularism whas one of the way slavers tried to avoid abolitionnism. The difference between the christians and the Muslims is that one is a post-hoc interpretation and the second is an explicit goal. It's like if someone rob you because he hates you and one who rob you for your mony and then say that is was justified by the fact you are rich or anything else ...
Explain in detail how the barbary slave trade was a jihad. You guys just talk out of your a** when it comes to Islam.
March 28 , 1786, letter by John Addams and Thomas Jefferson to John Dey on the matter of the diplomats send to the Dey of Tripoli in the 1870s.
“We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
The Barbary slave was litterally a Jihad, they took prisoners for the sake of Allah and when they were slain they went straight to paradise because they were shahids. Surah 47-35 " So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds." There is only peace in Islam when they are weak. And at the time it was the case. Islam is in an eternal war against all the disbelievers and Barbary slave raids were only a little part in that. The most important ones being the conquests of the Ottomans ...
It had nothing to do with Religion. Or do you really want to tell me that there was no Christian slave trade or piracy? Let religion out of this. Just bad humans doing bad things no matter what religion
I mean, sounds pretty ironic portraying France as the savior for ending slave trade in Mediterranean Europe.
Are you saying they didn't end the Barbary slave trade?
They did. Then they colonized North Africa.
oh yes, I fully agree.
How is that ironic ? France was one of the only power that at somepoint fought slavery, weren't they ? Fought feodalism in Europe and prohibited slavery in Africa, France and the UK are the main reasons slavery was abolished in most of the world
France did questionable things in Algeria and throughout all their colonies. The Indigenate Code clearly established a social apartheid in these territories, where locals could be submitted to forced work like building railroads and stuff, this same code permitting physical abuse of locals by the French Army. In Algeria specifically, many verified stories (check historian Benjamin Stora) of the French Army chasing resisting villagers into cave systems and starting fires in the entrances to suffocate locals(check Dahra smokings by General Bugeaud, ~1000 casualties, fighters, children or women). The French doctrine, "bridges,roads,hospitals", didn’t hold its promises since a massive proportion of the Algerian population was wiped out. So yes, France abolished slavery at some point, yes it ended barbaric slavery practices by North African tribes, but no France isn’t the saint in this story, as many many historians confirm
I did not say France acted as a saint. But I still don't see how it could be ironic that one of the countries that fought slavery the most would abolish the barbaric slavery
That’s not the point that was suggested by the previous post ! The irony wasn’t to portray France as the savior from slavery, but the savior period. Ok maybe under French govt it may have been slightly better, but France (and I say it as a French) didn’t step up to any basic moral value expected for such a moralist country. So yeah it’s ironic bc we substituted for slavery and inhumane practices for forced work and legal inhumane practices…
what's islamic piracy xD? Algiers had their own pirates, the way tunisia and morocco did
When Europeans had balls.
Now you have none, and you will never do what you did before. Burkina Faso is showing you how things will proceed.
Go back to your country and stop having wet dreams over something that will never happen again, especially by you. A watered down version of your colonialist, barbaric, and rapist ancestors.
I bet you are arabic, and to no ones surprise it is your people who are forcing themselves to europe, and on top of it, it is also your ancestors who loved to enslave everywhere they went and push for their beliefs. You are not better than any descendant of colonialists.
So you want to go back to war crimes? Oh, wait a minute...
Every time someone says something good about European history, a progressive lefty empty head pops up with "muh.... racism" "muh.... war crimes" "muh.... colonialism" "muh.... imperialism". While if a history of any non-Western nation is criticized this way (especially Middle Eastern or African nation) he screams - THAT'S RAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!
Not at all. In this context yes.
We are talking about the colonial conquest of Algeria on this thread bro. There are a lot of cool things about european history during this period and others, colonialism isnt one of them
Summed up pretty well ! Up voted
Anything that makes you feel guilty is worth taking.
You're not saying something good about European history, just that somehow this proves we had balls. There was very little to say in favour of the conquest of Algeria, it was conquest for the sake of conquest which was financially and militarily ruinous for France. The only good that came from it is that it favoured the July revolution which led to the abdication of the King.
colonialism and genocide is good??
I think the modern left views it as justified when done by non-whites to whites. They see it as "justice". They don't necessarily view it as good, but try to rationalize it. Take Gaza for example, when asked how could they justify the massacre done by Hamas on Oct 7, they answer: "what could you expect after oppressing people, blah blah blah".
Do you see colonization as justified?
Colonialism is in principle hardly different from any other conquest. The question whether it's justified or not is irrelevant. It just happened. Just like Arab conquests of the VII-IX century happened, just like Ottoman conquests happened. Were they justified? It's a stupid question to ask.
No it's definitely not.
It definitely is. But the left wants to perpetuate the inescapable sense of guilt in the West, that's why it tries to present the West as exceptionally cruel, exceptionally aggressive, exceptionally racist, etc.
It definitely is not. The fact those are two different words with different context and meaning. Especially referring to this post. I suggest you start there and look more into it.
I think killing people is bad
The Barbary pirates killed and enslaved millions of white Europeans. Thoughts?
We don't say it enough and it's not politically correct... 😁
What followed though?
Reparations.
My ass
What an exaggerated number, haha.
And an equal number of North Africans was enslaved and sold at European slave markets in places like Livorno and Malta, slavery was practiced by BOTH sides. Unlike their European counterparts, they were almost never ransomed.
What percentage of ransoms?
Of course only the nobility were ransomed. The guy wants us to believe someone would ransom serfs and simple townsfolk...
That's actually not true, because obviously there was private ransoms but the vast majority of the work was done by the Catholic Church. So in many cases the statut wasn't important at all. You can check the Chrurch's records if you want to go deeper in that.
Not sure but in my source it was mostly about 5 % of the people taken. Most of it was done by the Church.
Thank you 👍
1 ) . They were ensalved mostly by Spain, Malta and Portugal, this was a right given to them by the Pope in 1454 in direct response to the Islamic permanent jihad against christianity and in a try to make insentives to fight the Ottomans and Moors. So this " both side " is bulshit, also a large part of thoses slaves were taken from the Barbary pirates themselves.
2 ) Why they were never ransomed ?? Because absolutely no one cared about them, really no one. The difference is that the Church paid to take back a lot of the slaves. At the difference of the Muslims rulers who doesn't give a damn about their population. They didn't cared. And if it involved any Mony would not do anything. There is reports of missives between the ruler of Alger and the Papal states in the 17 th century about a dispute over cimetaries but never was it mention of playing to free thoses slaves.
3) The Barbary slavers went up to North America, sacked New York !!!! Did america ever sold or take any slaves in North Africa. No ! This was made purely for the Jihad against chirstiandom.
4) The christians actually put an end to slavery while the Muslims had to be forced to stop it.
The Barbary pirates killed and enslaved millions of white Europeans. Thoughts?
France killed as many Maghrebis during its colonisation and wars in North Africa (at least 1million).
The Barbaresque trade took around 1-2 millions europeans all over Europe, not only western Europe.
If they enslaved black Africans, and black Africans then colonized the Maghreb, I'm sure you would say it was justified as reparations.
No because colonisation is never justifiable.
Colonisation is an exploitation system that always end up in the colonial power losing its empire.
Im sure you consider the current colonisation of Europe by the third world to be justified.
I don't consider it to be a colonisation and i don't use the notion of 3rd world either
Let's add the Roman Empire to the equation then. Because arabs, and thus algerians, are absolutely not native the area, making them... colonisers...
Except most north africans aren't arabs. Much like the Franks took over Gaul but they never were the whole population.
That's why Egypt is considered by some as part of Mashreq instead of Maghreb, because they're seen as more arabised then the rest of North Africa.
Arabs were undeniably colonisers of Africa though.
I think that the disappearance of a colonial empire is generally due to geopolitical greed.
Wdym by "geopolitical greed" ?
And if these people are Nazi SS soldiers and you are fighting them to liberate concentration camp prisoners?
The famous Algerian Nazi
Saïd Mohammedi is not the only one and you could literally have found him with a 5 second search but it could have changed your worldview so you avoided it.
Justifying the colonization of Algeria and the at least 150 years of barbarism throughout the territory, including nuclear tests with populations that were absolutely not consulted, you really have to do it, guys, it's and re-justify everything on top of that as a fight against the Nazis, it's really clever, guys, you're right 🥴
False, the complete conquest took 73 years, until 1903.
[deleted]
It did, the southern most parts were conquered as late as the early 1900's, it's a simple fact.
It took a long time for them to get to the south that is a fact
You won’t take the destruction of barbaric Barbary from Le Jeffe
Interestingly Algerian Piracy went as far as to iceland (they had a Dutch captain though). They kidnapped a lot of people from one island.
The 130 following years are not France’s proudest moment. Even the conquest has unnecessary massacres
And around 130 years of worse opression and genocidal colonialism perpetrated by a bunch of frog eating demons.
Womp womp
[removed]
Oh alors toi de un t’es un sacré racelard 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Soon no more French people, you are on the verge of extinction, a helpless people
Your post or comment was removed for imperialism or denialism. Please ensure you understand our rules. If you continue to violate them you will be excluded from participating in this community.
A century of genocide started
On 5 July 1830, the French army captured Algiers, marking the start of French colonial rule in Algeria. This event effectively brought to an end the major era of Barbary piracy and European-Christian slave-raiding from the North African coast that had been a feature of Mediterranean history for several centuries (roughly four to five centuries).
😏
This war was further proof that the French were a dishonorable people. France borrowed money from Algeria and had food delivered. When Algeria demanded the money back, the French were offended and conquered the country.
Somehow critics of colonialism and anti-white racists always forget that second part.
Because there is no second part.
This whole trade slave was well over when the French conquered Algeria.
And btw the "North African" slave traders were almost always white men who converted to Islam and became Salve raiders to make loads of money. That's basic history. So long for your "white people were the victims here" propaganda...
Can you share any of your sources (most Barbary slavers being white converts)?
White slaves were not victims??
I never said that white slaves were not victims. I said that white slaves were victims of mostly white slave raiders based in North Africa. That's history.
Cut the "all lives matter" bs we see clear through you. Your name is enough to have an idea of what kind of person you are.
I’m confused. You don’t believe muslim North-Africans were the ones who were slave raiding Europeans?
reddit revisionists when there are small scale pirate raids in the mediterranean: 😡😡😡
reddit revisionists when france ships a million slaves to Haiti and then ransacks half a continent for over 100 years: 🤭🫣🫣🫣
Fuck the french empire, glory to algerian fighters 🇩🇿
Ok I need to clarify 2 points because this post and the comments here are a nest of ignorance and basic white nationalism.
1- Barbary slavery era was already well over when the French conquered Algeria. This slave trade declined in the end of the 18th century and completely terminated in 1816-1818, 12-14 years before the conquest. So long for your pro-colonial propaganda.
France did not invade Algeria because of slavery. It invaded Algeria because it owed a lot of money to the Algerian government after having bought Algerian wheat in masse during the Napoleonic Wars. And also because the French gouvernement wanted to restaure it's prestige towards the French population.
2- The French were not saviors in Algeria. They committed a genocide in Algeria and exterminated 1/3 of the population there to grab their land and break resistance. It is sick to read posts portraying this genocide as something positive.
Get some basic education for God's sake before you post stuff like that.
Long live the big replacement, the wheel has turned well
They shit on France, long live the great replacement
French vermin are on the verge of extinction
Complete? thats just the beginning of the conquest
Wow, I knew Reddit was a shithole of rabid racist propaganda, but pro-colonialism echo chambers was not on my bingo list today.
Fuck the French always Tahia dzayr 🇩🇿
Fuck the Arab slave trade and the Barbary raids!!!
My family is from Porto Santo, almost everyone from that island were kidnapped and sold in the Magreb, only around 18 men and 7 women remained. I must have distant relatives in Algeria who don't know their own history of slavery and suffering, maybe even you.
900 people were kidnapped to Algiers in one raid alone.
Then you would know the majority of the pirates engaging in the slave trade were European renegades , and that does not justify the brutal occupation that France enacted on the North African population the majority of whom had nothing to do with the Barbary slave trade . But keep on justifying mass genocide u white supremacist
We are Mediterranean boy, stop seeing yourself as "the brown people" don't victimize yourself, grow some balls and see life ahead your politics, you were also colonized by Arab colonialism, you're not an Arab, you are Berber, remember that. And probably even my distant relative.
Looool what shit are you chatting? We are Afro Mediterranean’s , big distinction. we are definitely not the same, if we are so similar why is there such racist discourse surrounding North Africans in Europe . And again if you knew anything about the Arab conquest of North Africa you’d see that it was mostly administrative , to compare the two is disingenuous. The French came to colonise, they had a scorched earth policy , they dehumanised us and labelled us subhuman. France killed off 1/3rd of the population from 1830 - 1890, they massacred over 45,000 over the course of 3 days. Do not presume to tell me what I am , we are Arab , Berber and African.
look at the sub you're in. this post got recommended to me for some reason and I want to puke looking at these comments. the absolute worst kind of revisionism.
What is up with that tho? I constantly get right wing subs recommended.
For too long we were divided by empires, there's a clear cultural continuum between Iberia and the Magreb, I am not French, I feel at home visiting the old city of Algiers, same for the old towns of Morocco, there's racism everywhere because of imperialism and religion, we lack to realize that we both come from the same tree and there's equal shares of both sides of the coast in each other, you cannot look at these girls (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=40Z_BlSXV0g) and say they don't look alike the ones from Portugal, Spain, Lebanon or southern Italy. We share so many things in common, in our culture, our food, our music, our wardrobe our technology, our common history, our traditional agriculture and pastoralism, and so many more. For too long we were divided and for too long we were slaves of foreign forces. We are not Arab, we are Iberian, Magrebi, Lebanese and much more. Specially the Iberians and the Magrebis is are the closest peoples, not the Arabs. Remember, you are not Arab, even if you only speak Arabic.
Berbers and Arabs are separate people, you eurotard.
That's exactly what I am saying, Magrebis are not from Arabia, they are from the Magreb, the same way I am Iberian, not French or Arab or Italian.
Berbers also migrated from the east and originate from the same Semitic tribes the Arabs and Hebrews come from. Learn some history.
That was thousands of years before the Arabs, we are all African by that metrics, go spread whataboutism on another shores
We are descendants of the ANA which are aboriginals native to North Africa
The last sentence voluntary ignore all the crimes commited by french army. Crimes admitted by the French officers themselves, and strongly criticized for their brutality in mainland France. So, who really ends the barbary here ?
"500 years of slave trade and Barbary piracy" is totally right.
meanwhile, the population of now-called Algerie grew from 2M in 1830 to 11M in 1962
Yeah, this all justifies asphyxiating women, children and the elderly in caves. Do you believe we should be burned alive/gassed because of 500 years of French imperialism/colonialism/slavery?
He never said that it was justified. He just said that the conquest ended the barbary slave trade. This had been going on for centuries with the Algerian regence frequently breaking off treaties between them and France, so that they could do their favorite past time. The crimes commited by the French were typical of the time and were similar to the ones commited in other wars like the Spanish independence war or the war of the Vendée.
First, he litterally talks about demographics for justify the conquest and all the massacres. Second, the atrocities were not as usual, and were critisized by many french during the conquest (even army officers). Third and last, the fact that other massacres were typical doesnt mean we have to justify them, or ignore them.
I believe he is quoting the Algerian demographics because some people qualify the Algerian conquest as a genocide while it's clearely not.
The atrocities you mentionned were the enfumades. While those massacres where undeniably cruel, they had a military goal, as armed men were in those caves along with their families. Note that I am not endorsing them, I am just stating the facts.
There was not only the enfumades, but also the burn of villages for example. Between 1/6 and 1/3 of the population was killed.
I replied to you in another comment. Not all victims you mentionned were killed by the hand of the French.
Yes, I never said that, and it dont change anything. Plus, the people that were dont directly killed by the french soldiers are dead because of the consequencies of the invasion.
Then we agree :). The invasion and its prelude were not as simplistic with a good vs evil fight as some people might imply.
The demographics of any country say next to nothing about genocide. There are 10.000 Denge people, someone kills 1.000 over 2 years with genocidal intent, meanwhile in these 2 years 1.200 children are born. So the population grew, yet a genocide was committed.
Some genocides “”only”” resulted in the death of 5.000 people, out of millions.
Please define the word genocide.
Do you hear yourself?
Between 1/6 and 1/3 of the local population was killed. And even for the colonial standards of that time, the conquest was seen as barbaric. Many civilians were killed and entire vilages burned. What are you trying to say ? Historians and many contemporians of the time are agree on that point.
While you are right on the number of victims, the perpetuators are up to debate. While the French undeniably killed a lot of civilians, the Algerians resistance also killed their own for collaborating.
Also a lot of Historians attribute the death of the great famines to the french but forget that there were very similar famines at the same time in Tunisa and Morroco who were not colonized. Even in Europe there were still famine deaths at the time.
Not everything is black and white in history.
You mean the 1866 famine ?
Yes.
It was 3 decades after the main phase of the conquest and the famine was partly due to French colonial policy.
How can it be the french's fault when there were similar famines at the same time and same intensity in the non occupied Maghreb ?
I can recommand you to read Daniel Lefeuvre on the subject.
It was a violent famine, even compared to others. And once again, it dont change the fact that colonial policies are part of the origins of this famine, even if, as I said, they were not the only reasons. And yes I know the works of Daniel Lefeuvre, but he is not the only historian and has a political agenda, even if he said the opposite.
It does not change the fact that the great majority of this famine victims where not due to the french. There were also a lot of famines in Algeria before the conquest and also in Europe at the same time like in Finland
Obviously all historians have a political agenda more or less. Daniel Lefeuvre grew up in the communist youth and was himself a repentant anti-colonialist. If he wrote his book it's because he was disgusted by the anti-republican and communautarism speeches.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conqu%C3%AAte_de_l%27Alg%C3%A9rie_par_la_France
If you can read french, there is fiable sources for this article.
It wasnt 500 years tho it was more like 300 years.
That's over a century later with millions of europeans settling in algeria.
Just because the population grew in 130years doesn't mean there was no victim during the french conquest
Around 300k people killed in the conquest conviniently ignored 🤗🤗🤗
No it doesn’t?
Not disagreeing with you here on the atrocities commited by the French forces during the conquest and later occupation, I just want to point out the "Barbary" here refers to the Barbary coast where these pirates were from so it's not really the point here.
The post is about the conquest of Algeria, so pointing out the piracy point without anything else is quite strange in regard of all the conséquences it had !
In this context, « Barbary » refers to an ethnic group from North Africa, you genius.
You should refrain to talk about subject you have obviously no knowledge about.
Yes I know, I use the term « barbaric » to point out the crimes here. And dont tell something you dont know about me. I’m waiting your counterarguments about the historical facts I said.
Did it put an end to piracy and slave trade?
Maybe, but it killed hundred of thousand of civilians, and it didn’t stop the slavery in France (1848)
Jefferson, deal with it slaver lover