| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Melanie Phillips discusses the 17-19th century jihad against Britain, which also touched the U.S. in the wars against the Barbary pirates of the early 19th century. Like the British raids, the Barbary conflicts have not been generally understood in the West as constituting jihad warfare; only recently have historians begun to realize that those warriors had the same ideology that motivates jihadists today.
From Melanie Phillips' diary, with thanks to Alan:
On my travels for the past few days, I have been reading a book which tells the story of a quite astonishing part of British history of which I was previously unaware. In 'White Gold', Giles Milton records the appalling details -- gleaned,it appears, from a wealth of historical documents including diaries and letters -- of a seaborne Islamic jihad against Britain which lasted for no less than two centuries.From the early seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, thousands of British men women and children were kidnapped by Arab corsairs and sold into slavery in Morocco where they were kept in conditions of unspeakable barbarism. The astounding thing is that these British victims were not merely seized at sea where they ran the gauntlet of such pirates in places such as the Straits of Gibraltar. They were actually abducted from Britain itself.
Corsairs from a place in Morocco called Sale -- who became known in Britain as the ‘Sally Rovers’ -- sailed up the Cornish coast in July 1625, for example, came ashore dressed in djellabas and wielding damascene scimitars, burst into the parish church at Mount’s Bay and dragged out 60 men women and children whom they shipped off to Morocco. Thousands more Britons were seized from their villages or their ships and dispatched to the hell-holes of the Moroccan slave pens, from where they were forced to work all hours in appalling conditions building the vast palace of the monstrous and psychopathic Sultan, Moulay Ismail, who tortured and butchered them at whim. Most of them perished, but the book records the survival of a tenacious Cornish boy Thomas Pellow, who survived 23 years of this ordeal and whose descendant, Lord Exmouth, finally ended the white slave trade when he destroyed Algiers in 1816.
The book makes clear that this assault upon the British people (and upon Europeans and Americans who were similarly seized) was a jihad. The Sally Rovers, writes Milton, were called ‘al-ghuzat’-- the term once used for the soldiers who fought with the Prophet -- and were hailed as religious warriors engaged in a holy war against the infidel Christians who were pressurised to convert to Islam under threat of hideous punishment. What is even more striking was the response of the British crown. For almost two centuries, it made only the most ineffectual attempts to rescue its enslaved subjects. Those who had succumbed to the torture and inhumanity of the Sultan and converted to Islam were deemed to be no longer British and therefore outside the scope of any rescue. The pleas of Pellow’s parents were simply brushed aside. Popular outrage forced successive Kings to dispatch a series of feeble emissaries to try to get the Sultan to end this vile traffic and release the slaves, all to no avail.
But this went on for virtually two centuries. For almost 200 years the British state either sat on its hands or wrung them impotently while the Islamic jihad seized, enslaved and butchered its people. And then it appears, this staggering onslaught was all but airbrushed out of our history.
Food for disquieting thought.
Even suicide terrorism was a factor in those days. Andrew Bostom has found that John Paul Jones encountered suicide attacks by Muslim Turks in 1788. Jones described a naval encounter between the Turks and the Russians that took place when Jones served in the Russian Navy:
“…for it was the intention of the Turks to attack us and board us, and if we had been only three versts further the attempt would have been made on the 16th [June 1788] (before the vessel of the Captain Pacha ran aground in advancing before the wind with all his forces to attack us,), God only knows what would have been the result…The Turks had a very large force, and we have been informed by our prisoners that they were resolved to destroy us, even by burning themselves, (in setting fire to their own vessels after having grappled with ours.) [note added by Jones: Before their departure from Constantinople, they swore by the beard of the Sultan to execute this horrible plan…if Providence had not caused its failure from two circumstances which no man could forsee.”]
That's from John Paul Jones’ Letter to Prince Potemkin, June 20, 1788, from Life and Character of John Paul Jones-A Captain in the Navy of the United States, John H. Sherburne, 1825, p. 308.
Posted by Robert at September 28, 2005 4:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Now, these folks don't need to bring people to Morocco to enslave them - Just infiltrate the infidel lands and enslave them under Sharia.
Posted by: trsthntr![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 28, 2005 5:05 AM
Jihad has come in 3 stages.
The first was when Muslims invaded Europe, and were beaten back by Charles Martel, King Jan Sobieski, and others.
The second was when they raided Britain and Europe and dragged off the British, Europeans and Americans to enslave them, and forcibly convert them to Islam.
The third is now, when they have emigrated to our lands, and plan to take them over by overbreeding and then bringing in sharia law.
We must see this as part of a continuing conquest that has been going on for almost as long as Islam has existed.
This time, let's finish the job, and get rid of Islam altogether, once and for all.
Posted by: Voltaire at September 28, 2005 5:17 AM
Jihad has come in 3 stages.
The first was when Muslims invaded Europe, and were beaten back by Charles Martel, King Jan Sobieski, and others.
The second was when they raided Britain and Europe and dragged off the British, Europeans and Americans to enslave them, and forcibly convert them to Islam.
The third is now, when they have emigrated to our lands, and plan to take them over by overbreeding and then bringing in sharia law.
We must see this as part of a continuing conquest that has been going on for almost as long as Islam has existed.
This time, let's finish the job, and get rid of Islam altogether, once and for all.
Posted by: Voltaire at September 28, 2005 5:17 AM
Jihad has come in 3 stages.
The first was when Muslims invaded Europe, and were beaten back by Charles Martel, King Jan Sobieski, and others.
The second was when they raided Britain and Europe and dragged off the British, Europeans and Americans to enslave them, and forcibly convert them to Islam.
The third is now, when they have emigrated to our lands, and plan to take them over by overbreeding and then bringing in sharia law.
We must see this as part of a continuing conquest that has been going on for almost as long as Islam has existed.
This time, let's finish the job, and get rid of Islam altogether, once and for all.
Posted by: Voltaire at September 28, 2005 5:18 AM
Trsthntr makes a reasonable point about invoking sharia in foreign lands.
I think it is good that we all study the good and the bad points concerning sharia, as it will directly affect our grand childrens.
Like the hurricanes flooding N.O., sharia too is coming...inevitable...forceful...and unstoppable by the "levvies" of democracy.. Probably Canada 1st , and then worming it's way into France and Germany.
It is already too late for countries like Malysia, Indonesia, Thialand....that's already a foregone conclusion.
I guess that in countries like Britain , Australia and NZ, sharia will probably be voted as democratic reform....i.e. muslims hold the balance of power.
Other countries like the US may well try to change their constitution to try and hold back the tide ....but the rule is:
"where there is democracy ....there will be sharia". For example...parts of Pakistan are Sharia in everything but name.
Sorry to be the bearer of this news but....
study the tenents of sharia...WE are al gonna need to.
Posted by: Naseem at September 28, 2005 5:34 AM
200 year Jihad against Britain? That's nothing! The Portuguese coast is filled with hundreds of forts that were built to protect the country from Muslim (and later English, French and Dutch) pirates.
After kicking out the Moors in 1249, the Portuguese began building a large fleet under king Dinis to protect the country against Muslim raids. When the Templars were banned in Portugal, the king incorporated their members and the wealth of the institution in the newly created Order of Christ. This order was responsible not only for the maritime defense of this part of Europe against the Moors, but it was also responsible for the Age of Exploration (particularly under Prince Henry). This is why the Portuguese galleons and caravels carried the red cross of the Order on their sails (and also why Hollywood blundered in "1492" when they placed that same symbol on Spanish sails).
History is ironic in the sense that the Moroccan and Algerian raids forced Portugal to build a navy powerful enough to explore the world, take the Indian spice trade from their grasp and thus lead the Muslim world into the economic swamp it is relegated to until this very day. The Age of Imperialism (and the European colonies that were established) also gave Europe the economic might to resist the Muslim onslaught.
One can safely say that even if Vienna had fallen to the Turk, the likely European response would have been devastating. In fact, had Europe endured our 911 back then maybe we wouldn't be facing some of the problems we currently face.
Posted by: cruzado at September 28, 2005 5:35 AM
Trsthntr makes a reasonable point about invoking sharia in foreign lands.
I think it is good that we all study the good and the bad points concerning sharia, as it will directly affect our grand childrens.
Like the hurricanes flooding N.O., sharia too is coming...inevitable...forceful...and unstoppable by the "levvies" of democracy.. Probably Canada 1st , and then worming it's way into France and Germany.
It is already too late for countries like Malysia, Indonesia, Thialand....that's already a foregone conclusion.
I guess that in countries like Britain , Australia and NZ, sharia will probably be voted as democratic reform....i.e. muslims hold the balance of power.
Other countries like the US may well try to change their constitution to try and hold back the tide ....but the rule is:
"where there is democracy ....there will be sharia". For example...parts of Pakistan are Sharia in everything but name.
Sorry to be the bearer of this news but....
study the tenents of sharia...WE are al gonna need to.
Posted by: Naseem at September 28, 2005 5:38 AM
Rubbish, Nasseem.
We will roast 'em, its only a matter of time.
Weak leadership and a it of amnesia in the west is a temporary thing, not a permanent condition.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 28, 2005 6:12 AM
Rubbish, Nasseem.
We will roast 'em, its only a matter of time.
Weak leadership and a bit of amnesia in the west is a temporary thing, not a permanent condition.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 28, 2005 6:12 AM
I would be interested to hear the comments of those posters who are qualified history teachers and researchers on this suggestion. Could a case be made out to explain the increase of British confidence in the 19th century which resulted in the expansion of empire as, in part, a reaction to these raids. It's not my period even at the level of my amateur reading. I read Cruzado's comments on Portugese history with interest.
I have a good friend of Irish parentage. Whenever the subject of white guilt for slave trade from West Africa to the West Indies comes up we both remind that person of the clearances and potato famine suffered by the indigenous white population. I have always then thrown in a bit about the Arab trade out of east Africa. This last year, since I now know more about this trade into North Africa I have silenced one or two people's whining.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at September 28, 2005 6:27 AM
DID I HEAR PIRATES MATIE! ARRRRRH
Yes, there are a number of similarities. See this earlier discussion over at Winds of Change.
*****
I'll go with that.
Let's see haven't we been down this road before?
Wasn't it pirates that sent the USMC to shores of Tripoli when this Country was young,
[...]
Posted by: Ron Wrght at September 28, 2005 6:32 AM
Melanie Philips article is excellent. I was aware that Arab-Muslim pirates were active in the north Atlantic, going as far as Iceland for slaves, but I was not aware of how much this also affected the British Isles. Of course, southern Italy and the southeastern coast of Spain were also affected. One writer on Italy, Erik Amfiteatrof, wrote of the harmful effect Arab piracy and slave raids had on southern Italy, on civilization in that area in general. There was a kind of 9/11 there a few hundred years ago when 17,000 persons were taken captive by Arab pirates in Reggio di Calabria in one raid. Curiously, Amfiteatrof strives not to get too far away from political correctness by calling these pirates not Arabs or Muslims, but Saracens, an old-fashioned name which he uses to cover up for Arab history. Indeed, it is curious that the Europeans organized in the EU are so ready, even eager, to falsify their own history by obscuring, by forgetting, deliberately or unconsciously, their own history of suffering at Arab or other Muslim hands.
Posted by: Eliyahu at September 28, 2005 6:54 AM
The American blacks probly have a strong case against the Arabs and should be suing for indemnity from the Arabs.
Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 28, 2005 8:10 AM
The American blacks probly have a strong case against the Arabs and should be suing for indemnity from the Arabs.
Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 28, 2005 8:10 AM
Great article by Melanie Philips, it really puts the struggle against Jihad into historical perspective. The more I discover about the Arab Muslim slave trade, the more I realize that it rivals if not surpasses anything the west is accused of.
Good show Jihad Watch! fighting Jihad is historical as well as contemporary and knowing about it's history is important if we are to expose the "religion of peace" for what it is.
Nasseem, I will only get to know the evil rules of Sharia, enough so that I can fight it and help defeat it.
My ancestors fought with EL Cid and defeated the Muslims in Spain, my great grandfather fought and defeated the Moors in Morocco for the Spanish crown.
Now that the alarm of Jihad has spread across the world, it will be defeated by my children and grandchildren.
With every Muslim threat, the unity of the world becomes stronger, form Australia to Thailand, From Africa to Europe, from America to Asia, we are all one against the fight to defeat those who follow the words of the so called prophet Mohammed.
Long live the memory of EL Cid Campeador, and Charles Martel, and King Jan Sobieski and anyone else who has fought to keep the west free.
It would be interesting to compile a list of the great historical figures that have fought against Jihad across the globe. I' sure their are many.
at September 28, 2005 8:10 AM
It is unfortunate that the Barbary depredations on European and American shipping has been characterized as acts of "pirates". In the West we think of pirates as motley collections of criminals aimlessly wandering the seas in unorganized and lawless bands a la pirates of the Carribean. The Muslim raiders however, were often organized into squadrons whose maneuvers were directed by officers in military fashion. Booty was distributed according to strict law and was effected by government institutions that existed just for that purpose, much the same way as Western governments administered prize cases.
Barbary raids were just more of the same type of operation that Muhammed personally directed in the desert in his lifetime, i.e., jihad. It is the only play in their playbook. Under the Ottomans the high seas depredations scaled up to fleet operations with officer corps and admiralties.
The Algierians, Moroccans, Tripolitans, and Tunisians were not pirates, they were military naval forces of states hostile to the non-Muslim world. They were at war with everyone in dar al-Harb. They were conducting jihad and if they had the power to do it today, they would pose the same menace to the world as they posed two centuries ago. It is only the cannons of the West that keep them in check. This is not opinion, it is simply a statement of historical fact.
In the 20th century the West allowed the jinn of jihad to escape from its bottle, a confinement to which it was forced by the blood and treasure of our ancestors for more than a thousand years. For more than 13 centuries jihad has only ever been neutralized with military might. It has never been thwarted with diplomacy. Never.
In 1816 Commodore Stephen Decatur, Jr. reported to the Secretary of the Navy that he had put an end to the Barbary War with a treaty of peace with Algiers that was "dictated at the mouths of our cannons", the only language understood by the adherents of the ideology from which the doctrine of jihad emanates. The present generation must become as fluent in that language as our ancestors if our civilization is to survive.
How many more 9/11s will restore that fluency? How many more more Madrid train bombings? How many more London bombings? How many more Beslans? How many more Qassams? How many more suicide bombers? How many more innocent lives to be lost? How many more? You get to decide. So make your decision and act on it. Act within the law. Act on it today. Act on it tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after. Act on it as if your life depends on it. Act on it as if the lives of your children, of your spouse, of your parents, of your brothers and sisters, of your uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces, of your neighbors, of your friends and colleagues, of your fellow citizens, depend on it.
This is not a movie folks, this is real. Just as our ancestors, we have made contact with an enemy who wants you and your families to die. This enemy knows only one language, the language of cannons. Let us speak.
Posted by: DrMack at September 28, 2005 8:28 AM
The Boston Globe recently reviewed this book very favorably. The final paragraph of the review says:
"All of which makes ''White Gold" not merely an interesting small book about one of history's more colorful footnotes. In view of the situation we all face today it is an important book as well, and one that those who are interested in the complexities of what British prime minister Tony Blair has called the degraded aspects of Islam would do well to read, with great care and attention. Militant Islam is, in other words, nothing new."
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/08/07/into_africa?mode=PF
Contact your local library and request that the library purchase this book!
Posted by: kelley at September 28, 2005 8:36 AM
It's becoming apparent that the only thing that will stop these terrorists completely is the detonation of thermonuclear devices on Mecca and Medina and the total destruction of this cult of Mohammed (pigs be upon him).
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 28, 2005 8:40 AM
I have also read this "small book, White Gold. It was disheartening to read how the crowned heads of Europe reacted to the deprecations against their subjects. Their reactions were appeasement, the paying of tribute, and mostly the abandonment of their subjects to the most horrific of cruelties: torture, malnutrition, deplorable living conditions, castration and so on. It would be wise to look upon this period in Muslim history with a jaundiced eye as this will be our fate if Islam is allowed to flourish in the West and Islam becomes triumphant.
Posted by: epg at September 28, 2005 9:56 AM
The Barbary Pirates, though discriminating against Christians, were businessmen, much like the Mafia. It was reported that ransom rates were set at a fixed price: $4,000 for a passenger, $1,400 for a cabin boy. In the coastal towns of Salem, Newport, and Boston, the names of those who were captured by the Barbary Pirates were read aloud each Sunday in the churches, just as those who were lost at sea. Most of the ransom had to be raised privately, as Congress was unable or unwilling to pay the full asking price.
By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/barbary.htm
Posted by: fides at September 28, 2005 10:57 AM
Pity they didn't have nuclear weapons in the 19th century. They would have finished off the job. Imagine what our politically correct whimps would whine about if we destroyed algiers today to eliminate the barbary pirates.
Posted by: restitutor orbis at September 28, 2005 10:59 AM
I'm not at all surprised that the British only made half-hearted attempts to get those poor people back. There is something almost too civilized about us Brits. It has always been said that the British are only ever any good if their backs are against the wall. Our backs are not yet against it. The time will come, though; and that time may not be that far off.
Pity that the British have to try and be so fair all the time; fairness is no good protection against the barbarians we are up against.
Only yesterday I heard the twaddle that Blair spoke in his address to the Labour Party Conference apropos of moderate Muslims. These twerps governing us just will not give in, will they? They just will not concede that we have an enemy, not only without, but also within; and that enemy is barbaric, and not very nice! They are prone to revenge, they glorify punishments which civilized people find totally and utterly barbaric, and they are determined to destroy our peaceful and free way of life; and all Blairboy can do is talk about moderate Muslims!
Moderate Muslims, my foot! Where are they? Show them to me! You show me the moderate Muslim, and I'll show you the dormant fanatic within! Guaranteed!
at September 28, 2005 11:38 AM
Google "Jihadwatch" and "Thomas Pellow" to find a long discussion and review of Giles Milton's book.
Posted by: Hugh at September 28, 2005 11:50 AM
Granny,
As you probably already know, Britain was the first country in the world to abolish slavery in 1772. Dr Samuel Johnson, who compiled the English dictionary, left a lot of his estate when he died in 1784 to his black manservant who was a freed slave.
In 1807 Britain abolished the slave trade, and then slavery within the colonies in 1832. Much of the role of the Royal Navy in the 19th century was to intercept slave ships.
After Britain acquired a half-share in the Suez Canal, she pressured Egypt to introduce anti-slavery measures, provoking the Mahdist revolt because slavery is part of Islam. This Islamic revolt culminated in their capture of Khartoum and the death of Gordon in 1885. A decade later, general Kitchener's forces recaptured Sudan, finishing off with our victory the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, which is regarded as the high tide of British imperialism.
Posted by: Elephant at September 28, 2005 12:15 PM
One question...why is this part of history not taught in our schools? I never knew that the Europeans were white slaves until I bought this book.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 28, 2005 12:35 PM
I knew before, but until recently (not just from the review of this book which I must buy and read after Islam in Britain, there was a TV programme last year which touched on the subject and pondered how many Western European genes were in the North African gene pool) did not realise the scale, and the extent, of the raids and kidnapping up the coast. I thought a few sailors here and there and I knew there were a few Frenchwomen in the Turkish harems. I had no idea that whole Devon and Cornish villages were emptied.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at September 28, 2005 12:50 PM
I wonder if King Mohammed's (Morocco) wife Lalla Salma, who is a redhead, is a descendant of one of these slave. I sometimes muse that my sandy haired, green-eyed Lavantine friends might be descendants of Franks who never made it home after the Crusades.
Posted by: spencerd at September 28, 2005 1:06 PM
ne question...why is this part of history not taught in our schools? I never knew that the Europeans were white slaves until I bought this book.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 28, 2005 12:35 PM
It is (or was) taught in some schools because I studied this issue in American History. It wasn't only British and Europeans who were kidnapped by the muslim jihadist "pirates", Americans were too.
In the late 1700's, eleven American ships were seized by the Corsairs, a stateless enemy, and the U.S. had to borrow the ransom from a Jewish moneylender in Algiers to pay the million dollar ransom. The raids and kidnappings continued until around 1817 when France finally invaded and colonized most of NW Africa.
One of the decisive battles in this extended war waged by the jihadist pirates occurred in 1804 in Tripoli. American marines approached the enemy ships at great speed, boarded them and engaged in hand-to-hand combat. They destroyed the town's fortifications, several gunboats, and the jihadist nexus---a large mosque. Isn't it strange that in 1804, American leaders were cognizant of the driving force behind these barbarians but in 2005, they don't have a clue.
There are many similarities between the stateless jihad of the 1700's and 1800's against Europe and America and the type of war being waged against the U.S. today.
Posted by: Susanp at September 28, 2005 1:10 PM
Quite possibly.
This documentary, which I only caught at the end and was not specifically about White Gold, showed the grave of the wife of a King of Morocco who had been born in England. They said nothing about where she was from, what her real name was or how she ended up a slave (no matter how elevated her final owner) in Morocco. Just that her islamic name translated as something like Flower of the sunshine.
I'll try Google and see if I can find more.
at September 28, 2005 1:16 PM
Carolyn,
Many people in Eastern Europe were enslaved by the Turks under the Ottoman Empire. For example when they captured Constantinople in 1543, it is estimated that 50,000 women and children were sold into slavery.
A lot of the people trafficked into Western Europe are East European girls who have been kidnapped and forced into prostitution, hence sexual slavery. This is often done via Islamic Bosnia and Kosovo, and the handlers are Albanians and Turks.
at September 28, 2005 1:20 PM
A verse from the US Marine Corps Anthem runs "...to the shores of Tripoli," just as a reminder that threats of this kind can be handled effectively by armed force. Sadly, it seems to be the only kind of communication that is understood and respected by the perpetrators of these outrages. However, it is also clear that after each repulse, the threat regroups and reasserts itself. What about the abominations in the Sudan? Nigeria? East Timor? Philippines? 9/11?
And speaking of slaves, what about the Filipina domestic workers in Saudi Arabia, who go unpaid and can't leave the country without their masters' ...err... employers' permission? That sounds suspiciously like slavery to me. And that's leaving aside issues of sexual harrassment and religious intolerance for the moment. Isn't the legal code in Saudi Arabia something called "Shariah?" If Shariah is so wonderful, shouldn't it get busy on these problems? Or is the problem only in the eye of the beholder?
Anyone who states that justice will come from the rule of Shariah is either a fool, a maniac or a liar...or any combination of the three. Slavery comes from Shariah. Islam means submission. That much at least is true.
Posted by: Chatillon at September 28, 2005 1:50 PM
One wonders if the extremely knowledgeable Melanie would herself have been unaware of the activities of the waterborn Jihadists on the coasts of Devon and Cornwall.
I only mention this to make the point of how even our history has been expunged of the excesses of Islam for reasons that i can only wonder about.
Even when Islam conquered a piece of european real estate,none of it made the curriculum of school history books.
How many scool graduates even realise that Sicily was conquered by Islam?
Someone asked why the Historians had seldom covered the issues of historic Jihad against the west and when they did they used words such as pirates or corsairs to disguise it in the same way that the BBC today refuses to call militants islamic jihadists or terrorists today.
One must compliment the Islamic warriors for so efficiently wiping out the memories of their truly homicidal excesses from western history.
And it seems with the help of many westerners.
When we studied history at school , we of course never heard a whisper of information on Islamic Jihad in dar al harb during seven years of courses. And that was in one of the top english public schools which today still top the A level results for the UK.
If History is always written by the victor,then why has this subject been TABOO for hundreds of years?
Why is it that each time we are attacked and butchered our politicians react as if this is sometning "NEW" from a group of rogue muslims, when they must know it has been ongoing for more than athousand years?
at September 28, 2005 2:44 PM
I can't find exactly what I remembered. What I have managed to find is this genealogy of the Alawi Dynasty still currently ruling Morocco.
http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Morocco/morocco5.htm
Which says of H.M. Sultan Al-'Alawi Sidi Muhammad III bin 'Abdu'llah, Sultan of Morocco, 1757 – 1790 that his second wife was “Lalla Sargetta, an English or Irish lady.” And his 11th “another European lady”
His ancestor H.M. Sultan 'Abul Nasir Mulay Ismail as-Samin bin Sharif, Sultan of Morocco 1672 – 1727 had as his 10th wife Mrs Shaw an Irishwoman.
There are a lot of nameless wives in the genealogy, a lady of Rabat here and a lady from the al-Khlouti family there some of whom may have been European.
at September 28, 2005 2:58 PM
Elephant:
Re: "As you probably already know, Britain was the first country in the world to abolish slavery in 1772"
I think you are too ambitious with your dates regarding abolition - see below. One of the first jurisdictions to limit slavery was Upper Canada (now Ontario). The governor, John Graves Simcoe, detested slavery and passed the Anti-Slavery ACt of 1793 which ended the sale and importation of slaves. Unfortunately Simcoe couldn't abolish slavery outright as British law would not permit it (I believe it had to do with property rights). Simcoe was an interesting character, he was also a very effective commander in the Revolutionary War as a ranger. See various articles below.
"Through the means of mass petitioning William Wilberforce, who led the campaign in the Commons, hoped to exert pressure on Parliament to abolish the slave trade. The strategy almost worked; in 1792 the House resolved by 230 votes to 85 that the trade ought to be gradually abolished. But petitioning on this scale was always likely to cause alarm in the minds of men with one eye on events in France. Ultimately, radicalism was to prove the Achilles heel of the early abolitionist movement. The rising tide of revolutionary violence in France and, with it, the growth of political reaction at home, inevitably took its toll. In 1793 the Commons refused to revive the subject of the slave trade, effectively reversing the resolutions of the previous year."
"Ironically, however, war in Europe helped to prepare the way for final victory. The acquisition of new territories in the West Indies, notably Trinidad, Berbice, and Demerara, led many of the old planter élite, who were increasingly fearful of competition, to desert the anti-abolitionist ranks. Capitalising on this change of heart and the entry into Parliament of a batch of new liberal Irish MPs, the abolitionists in 1804 renewed their campaign. In 1805 a Bill providing for the abolition of the slave trade to conquered territories triumphantly passed both Houses. The following year this was superseded by a stronger measure that outlawed the British Atlantic slave trade altogether."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/antislavery_02.shtml
"Perhaps Simcoe's most important achievement as lieutenant-governor was the limitation of slavery in the province.
Initially, Simcoe proposed the outright abolition of slavery. However, the Legislative Assembly opposed this proposal because many Loyalists brought enslaved people with them to Upper Canada after the American Revolution. As a compromise, Simcoe passed legislation that allowed for gradual abolition: slaves already in the province would remain enslaved until death, no new slaves could be brought into Upper Canada, and children born to female slaves would be freed at age 25. This act was the first to limit slavery in the British Empire and remained in force until 1833 when the Emancipation Act abolished slavery in all British holdings, including Ontario."
http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_2724_1.html#2728
John Graves Simcoe was born on February 25, 1752 in Cotterstock, Northamptonshire in Britain. In 1770, after graduating from Eton College and Oxford, he entered the British army. He obtained a commission in the 35th Regiment of Foot, and was sent to Boston to fight in the American Revolution. He purchased a majority in the 40th Regiment with which he served until 1777, when he was made commanding officer of the 1st American Regiment (Queen's Rangers).
Simcoe was an innovative tactician and, on the battlefield, one of the army's most successful commanders. He achieved the rank of lieutenant-colonel and was wounded three times before being captured in 1779. Two years later, Simcoe was invalided back to Britain and, in 1782, he married Elizabeth Gwillim and purchased Wolford Lodge.
http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_2724_1.html#2738
at September 28, 2005 3:06 PM
Granny
that would imply that the jihadists were also raiding the coast of Ireland for slaves and booty.
Do you have any evidence of that?
at September 28, 2005 3:07 PM
chevalier de st george
There is a notorious incident when the town of Baltimore was virtually cleared. Give me a few minutes to look it up and I'll get back.
at September 28, 2005 3:10 PM
Elephant:
Some further information regarding Simcoe and slavery:
1793 Anti Slavery Act
"Simcoe’s Anti-Slavery Act of 1793, as popularly believed, did not free slaves in Upper Canada; rather it provided for the gradual abolition of slavery – for freedom for future generations. It began as a typical compromise. Simcoe favoured complete and immediate abolition and considered issuing a proclamation to that effect at the beginning of his administration. He is quoted as promising before he arrived in Upper Canada "not to give assent to any law that discriminates by dishonest policy between the natives of Africa, America or Europe". This is considered naive. The Upper Canada he was coming to was a Loyalist establishment, populated by recent immigrants who were naturally jealous of their property rights as British citizens, having forfeited practically everything in their defence of the Crown in the late Revolutionary War. They were in no rush to deprive themselves of valuable property which they regarded as essential to their economic viability in the colony.
Slavery and Freedom in Niagara, Michael Power & Nancy Butler p9-10"
http://www.lundyslanemuseum.com/blackhistory.html
Posted by: johnb at September 28, 2005 3:12 PM
Have just found the programme I spent an hour searching for, which tells of the lady "sunshine of the morning" It mentions the raid on baltimore but doesn't say much.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1168556,00.html
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at September 28, 2005 3:14 PM
Chevalier:
See the following. It's also worth noting that the technical advances used by the Barbary corsairs were usually introduced by renegade Europeans (e.g. sailing ships instead of galleys). The introduction of sailing ships by the Flemish renegage Simon Danser made long distance raiding possible.
"Until the 17th century the pirates used galleys, but a Flemish renegade of the name of Simon Danser taught them the advantage of using sailing ships. In this century, indeed, the main strength of the pirates was supplied by renegades from all parts of Christendom."
"The first half of the 17th century may be described as the flowering time of the Barbary pirates. More than 20,000 captives were said to be imprisoned in Algiers alone. "
"The continued existence of this African piracy was indeed a disgrace to Europe, for it was due to the jealousies of the powers themselves. France encouraged them during her rivalry with Spain; and when, she had no further need of them they were supported against her by Great Britain and Holland. In the 18th century British public men were not ashamed to say that Barbary piracy was a useful check on the competition of the weaker Mediterranean nations in the carrying trade. When Lord Exmouth sailed to coerce Algiers in 1816, he expressed doubts in a private letter whether the suppression of piracy would be acceptable to the trading community. Every power was, indeed, desirous to secure immunity for itself and more or less ready to compel Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, Salé and the rest to respect its trade and its subjects. In 1655 the British admiral, Robert Blake, was sent to teach them a lesson, and he gave the Tunisians a severe beating. A long series of expeditions was undertaken by the British fleet during the reign of Charles II, sometimes single-handed, sometimes in combination with the Dutch. In 1682 and 1683 the French bombarded Algiers. On the second occasion the Algerines blew the French consul from a gun during the action. An extensive list of such punitive expeditions could be made out, down to the American operations of 1801‑5 and 1815. But in no case was the attack pushed home, and it rarely happened that the aggrieved Christian state refused in the end to make a money payment in order to secure peace. The frequent wars among them gave the pirates numerous opportunities of breaking their engagements, of which they never failed to take advantage."
Posted by: johnb at September 28, 2005 3:23 PM
Johnb,
No, I'm pretty sure that slavery was abolished in England itself in 1772, though you are right that it Britain did not abolish its slave trade until 1807.
In 1772 in the Somerset v Stewart case, Lord Mansfield judged that black slaves could not be forceably sold abroad by their masters; in effect, the decision established that English courts would not view slavery as an enforceable contractual arrangement. The decision received much press attention and was widely regarded as ending slavery in England.
('The Companion to British History' edited by Juliet Gardiner and Neil Wenborn)
Posted by: Elephant at September 28, 2005 3:33 PM
The Raid is known as "The Sack of Baltimore"
"In 1631, the village was attacked by Algerian pirates. One hundred of the village's townspeople were kidnapped and dispatched to Algeria as slaves, never to return. Today this is refered to as the Sack of Baltimore. The fate of the hundred unfortunate men, women, and children has never been established."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Baltimore
Thomas Osbourne Davis wrote a poem about it. I had never heard of it until tonight.
The Sack of Baltimore
The yell of 'Allah!' breaks above the prayer, and shriek, and roar:
O blessed God! the Algerine is lord of Baltimore!
- Thomas Davis
The raid on Baltimore in 1631 took place in the context of a number of pirate attacks on coastal communities across the north Atlantic - communities in Iceland and the Faroe Islands were devastated by similar raids. Murad Reis, a Dutch buccaneer who moved to Algeria and converted to Islam was the driving force behind the attacks. The incident began when two boats were commandeered by the pirates in Dungarvan, County Waterford. The stolen boats were sailed to Kinsale, but the master of one of the boats, John Hackett, refused to berth there as the town was a military stronghold. He chose instead to bring the boats to Baltimore. At two o'clock in the morning of 20 July, some 230 buccaneers attacked the village with firebrands and muskets. They first attacked the houses along the Cove, taking 100 people as captives. Then, they set their sights on the village of Baltimore itself, although it is said that one of the villagers, a William Harris, roused the townsfolk in advance, forcing the pirates to retreat. The pirate ships set sail for Algeria later that day, with the captives on board. Efforts were made to rescue the settlers, but to no avail. Nothing was ever heard from them again. John Hackett was subsequently tried and executed for his part in the raid.
at September 28, 2005 3:36 PM
Thank you Granny
thank you JohnB
interesting to note the high number of conversions to islam amongst the captured christian slaves and the eagerness with which some took in piracy.
Another parallel with todays islamic converts who are often more extremist jihadists than the muslims themselves.
Imagine the people of Taunton, somerset when they ransomed one of their own, only to find a commited jihadist Muslim on his return.
at September 28, 2005 3:40 PM
A bit like poor little Daisy Ridley over on DW. Waves Mummy off to work, Mummy gets captured by the Taliban and comes home sporting a burka and a contract for islam TV
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at September 28, 2005 3:45 PM
Chevalier and Granny,
This reminds me of Patti Hearst. I'm not quite sure how the psychology works when people start identifying with those who mistreat them.
Other examples of this were the janissaries, the Christian children who the Turks abducted who were trained to be the most fanatic warriors for Islam in the Ottoman army.
Posted by: Elephant at September 28, 2005 3:53 PM
Granny and Chevalier,
Also the eagerness with which many people are apologists for Islam and how nasty they get if you say anything against it.
Posted by: Elephant at September 28, 2005 3:59 PM
Of course what we don't get told, because they were over quick, are the stories of the Christians who refused to convert.
All the people who were "never heard of again"
at September 28, 2005 4:16 PM
sheik yer'mami: "We will roast 'em, its only a matter of time."
Ain't that the truth. PC warfare is a byproduct of absolute power. When we (the West) begin to feel threatened the Muslims will be on the receiving end of genuine shock and awe.
Posted by: 1630r at September 28, 2005 4:30 PM
Granny Weatherwax wrote:
"Could a case be made out to explain the increase of British confidence in the 19th century which resulted in the expansion of empire as, in part, a reaction to these raids."
What I am about to say is highly subjective, but in my very modest opinion (I say modest because I am not an historian) the build up of English (and later British) confidence was a very slow and gradual process to took centuries to develop itself, but what was the defining moment? Was it Agincourt? The Elizabethan defeat of the Invincible Armada? The deads of the English privateers in the Spanish Main? The answer for all these questions is a negative. Well into the mid XVII century England was a weak country - both from a military and economic point of view.
England did however have a great advantage that most of the rest of Europe didn't have: she was a part of an island. When the Stuarts became the ruling monarchs, Scotland stopped being a puppet serving French interests - all London had to worry was about protecting Britain's shores. This was particularly evident during the Napoleonic Wars, when the successes of Napoleon's armies - unbeated in the mainland - were virtually useless to defeat an enemy kept inflicting heavy blows upon the French Imperial Navy. That frustrated (and weakened) the continental power, forcing the emperor to a Continental Blockade that eventually forced Napoleon to invade both Portugal (1807-11) and Russia (1812) with consequences that are well known.
By this time, despite having already lost the American colonies, Britain more than compensated by what she was achieving in Asia and Africa. Success is what allows national confidence to grow. In my opinion, June 18 of 1815 was the day in which Britain stopped being a power to become the power.
Elephant wrote:
"As you probably already know, Britain was the first country in the world to abolish slavery in 1772."
That is incorrect. The first country to abolish slavery was Portugal (in the decree issued by the marquis de Pombal of April 1770). It should be mentioned that the decree solely addressed the slaves in European Portugal (not the colonies). Slavery was therefore tolerated in the later for a long period of time.
In any way, Britain fought against the black slave trade not because of any humanistic feeling, but solely because ending the black slave trade would destroy the economies of most European colonial powers (namely France, Spain, Holland and Portugal). Britain would not be affected because she was replacing African slave workers by Irish workers for quite some time now. Now, the Irish weren't treated quite poorly in the English colonies (partly because of religion, partly because of a XIX century racist ideology later developed by people like the German Hans Guenther and the American Maddison Grant).
To conclude: Britain condemned the African slave trade because it had something to gain from prohibition (the asfixiation of the colonial slave economies and the development of the British industries). Dignity or respect for Human Rights had absolutely nothing to do with the end of the African slave trade.
However, despite the fact that the motives for the end of that trade were not particularly bulletproof, credit be given where credit it due: even though the Royal Navy was not the only national fleet engaged in hunting down slave traders, it was definitely the first to actively pursue that objective and the only one whose actions were crucial to put that barbaric business to an end.
Posted by: cruzado at September 28, 2005 5:11 PM
"the Irish weren't treated"
should be "The Irish WERE treated quite poorly..."
Posted by: cruzado at September 28, 2005 5:15 PM
Cruzado,
I stand corrected, hats off to Portugal, but I think you are being a bit too cynical about Britain's motives for abolition. There was a lot of genuine philanthropy involved. There was a great deal of public campaigning. Josiah Wedgewood issued a cameo showing a kneeling, manacled slave, with the inscription 'Am I not a Man and a Brother?' Its impact on the public was tremendous ('Heritage of Britain', Reader's Digest, p 251). Also William Wilberforce used his personal connections with Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. In Bromley there is a tree known as Wilberforce Oak under which the two Williams discussed the abolition of the slave trade ('The London Encyclopaedia' edited by Ben Weinreb & Christopher Hibbert, p98).
The fact that we are disputing as to which country was the first to abolish slavery attests to the fact that were strong abolitionist movements and sentiments within our countries.
I don't think there has been an Islamic William Wilberforce or Harriet Beecher Stowe, someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Posted by: Elephant at September 28, 2005 5:52 PM
YES WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THIS WAR A LONG TIME WHEN ARE WE GOING TO FINISH IT??
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm
Terrorism In Early America
The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary
States To End International Blackmail and Terrorism
By Thomas Jewett
President George Washington tried to reach an agreement with the Barbary States but with little success. His agents, one of whom was John Paul Jones, had diplomatic doors slammed in their faces.
Washington's ambassadors in Europe worked to free Americans enslaved in Barbary dungeons, but John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were ridiculed.
In 1785, the exasperated Jefferson suggested that war was the only solution. His mind was "absolutely suspended between indignation and impotence." Jefferson declared that tribute was "money thrown away" and that the most convincing argument that these outlaws would understand was gunpowder and shot. The future president proposed a multi-national effort between European powers and America that would in effect economically blockade North Africa and ultimately provide for a multi-national military force to combat pirate terrorism. The European powers chose to continue paying tribute to the Barbary States (Irwin, 1970).
THIS IS A MUST READ AND PASS ON NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED TODAY WE ARE STILL PAYING A DIMMI TAX AND ALL THE PLAYERS ARE THE SAME??
WHEN YOU READ THIS STORY FROM HISTORY NOTICE THE USMC WON THE FIGHT AND THE POLIS GAVE UP AFTER WE WON???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59720-2001Oct14
Terrorists by Another Name: The Barbary Pirates
By Richard Leiby
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 15, 2001; Page C01
They considered us infidels -- and easy targets. They committed atrocious acts against civilians. They provoked war with America.
"They are odious for the constant violation of the laws of nations and humanity," as one writer put it. We saw them as bloodthirsty fanatics, sanctioned by Islamic despots, and we believed their behavior threatened the future of the modern world.
ANOTHER GOOD READ??
SOME TIMES RECALL IS A GOOD THING!!
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria18_1.htm
Africa
This Bill of Rights in Action explores issues related to Africa. The first article examines the United States' reaction to the Barbary pirates in the early 19th century. The second article explores the current AIDS crisis in Africa. The final article looks at 14th century Mali and other Islamic lands through the eyes of Ibn Battuta, who traveled throughout the Muslim world.
The United States and the Barbary Pirates
http://www.zum.de/psm/rta/doa8a.php
Reichstagsakten 1888/89, 7. Lp., Vol. 121, Attachment 41: Collection of Documents pertaining the Uprising in East Africa, Report from the Imperial consul general on Zanzibar
No.8, attachment no. 1, Report from District Chief of Lindi
Lindi, August 16th 1888
The Arab segment of the population of Lindi lives on the slave trade. All soldiers and Sultan's men are accomplices and receive their share in the robbery.
The main slave traders are :
Mahamadi Ngunga
Bachofa Hamed
Abid bin Zef
Halaal bin Zef
Salim bin Abdallah
Seliman, the Sultan's prison guard
Rashid de Pappa
and the Kadi Omani bin Jemali
The latter is given a large percentage for remaining silent.
British warships hardly ever have confiscated a slave dhow here and do not visit the port. Almost all the dhows sail under the French flag which they obtain from the consulate in Madagscar, as they have their ships measured there.
I remark simultanously that it is difficult to undertake anything here against slave trade, which is also profitable to the indigenous along the coast, without having a sufficient force at my disposal.
the district chief
Freiherr von Eberstein
YOU SEE WE HAVE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE BUT THE STAKES ARE MUCH HIGHER THEN MY SPELLING OR THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST??
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NUKES IN THE HANDS OF MONSTERS WHO WANT CONTROL OF THE WORLD ??
IF YOUR FEELINGS GET HURT GET OVER IT GROW UP AS THEY SAY??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Destroy ALL islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
PS
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2004
SEAMS IN 1888 Portugal, WAS BUYING SLAVES FROM THE ARABS??
WE WORKED A DEAL WITH THEM??
Posted by: Catherine at September 28, 2005 7:30 PM
This is all very informative. After the post is closed, I will print it off for the info contained.
In case any of you wanted to read Thomas Pellow for yourself, if you have access to the electronic database "Eighteenth Century Online", it's in there.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at September 28, 2005 7:53 PM
To Elephant:
I am not being cynical. You are absolutely right when you say that there were philantropic people involved in the abolitionist movement (not only in Britain, but also in Revolutionary France). HOWEVER (and this is what you should have into account) there would never have been a successful abolitionist campaign supported by the British government if the British economy couldn't depend on a different source of cheap (almost free) labour. I read somewhere that in the American South, at one point the plantation owners used the Irish to do the heaviest and most dangerous work because "black slaves are expensive while a dead Irishman costs nothing".
I also mentioned something about Maddison Grant (some of his "work" is published online) that clearly supported the notion that the Irish were an inferior breed of human (he said similar things about southern Europeans, rest assured that I have nothing against the Irish).
Let me give you a modern example of a similar problem: the green-house effect and global warming. America - a country that produces 25% of the the total CO2 liberated into the atmosphere - refuses to sign the Kyoto treaty because it would ruin her economy. This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the whole world (Europe is doing it) but until America finds an environmental solution that is considered economically sustainable, the American government won't do squat (particularly because the oil lobbies would hate to see the oil consumption going down). Now, if America already had an alternative clean fuel source (say nuclear fusion), don't you think that the US of A would be the first to wave the flag against fossile fuels? This is logical, and politics are all about self-interest, few times in History philantropy got the upper hand.
I gave you the example of fossile fuels, but I could have given you the example of the American Civil War, a war that wasn't fought to free Black slaves (had Lincoln not been murdered by John Wilkes Booth, he would have deported ALL the Aframs to Liberia, he wanted them out of America). Why was that war fought? Because the industrial north (using Irish labour) wanted to get rid of the competition posed by the slave economies of the southern states.
To Catherine:
"SEAMS IN 1888 Portugal, WAS BUYING SLAVES FROM THE ARABS??"
Why would the Portuguese state buy black slaves from the Arabs, when in 1888 Portugal was one of the few countries that actually had a real colonial presence in sub-saharan Africa, and thus easy access to black manpower? Furthermore, Portugal gave Brazil her independence in 1822, thus ending the "obligation" to supply that territory with a steady stream of slaves to support the Brazilian agricultural economy. Would we buy black slaves from the Arabs to send them to Mozambique or Angola? Why would we do that if there were plenty of Blacks in those very places?
Where there Portuguese slave traders operating in the Indian Ocean in the 1880s? Probably. There were also American, and French ships doing the exact same thing. Can we blame the American or French states for the actions of individuals? We obviously cannot.
Just for the record, two more things:
1) I remember reading about an incident that happened in the Mozambican shores in the 1880s, when a Portuguese frigate captured a French slave trader and freed the slaves. When the French government knew about the incident, it forced Portugal to pay for the lost "cargo", otherwise there would be war. Since we were by then a weak country with a pathetic army unable to defend the colonial empire, we decided to pay to avoid further troubles.
2) My grandmother was born in 1912 in Mozambique and when she was a young girl, she had 12 "servants" (slaves) to take care of her. Now, I am talking about something that happened in 1920, 1921.
I wrote what I wrote for historic accuracy's sake and nothing more. If I needed to boost my patriotic-related self-esteem (which I can assure you that I do not), I certainly wouldn't boost it at JihadWatch.
PS: Catherine? When you write a whole sentence in CAPS, that means that you are shouting. I am too young to be deaf. Regards.
at September 28, 2005 8:16 PM
To Elephant:
"The fact that we are disputing as to which country was the first to abolish slavery attests to the fact that were strong abolitionist movements and sentiments within our countries."
The decree issued by the Marquis de Pombal was indeed to first document that I know of prohibiting the arrival of black slaves (I once heard a Russian say that Catherine the Great had passed similar laws around the same period, but I can't confirm the veracity of those claims). There were abolitionist movements, but the reason why the Pombal decree was issued was because the industrious marquis believed that the slaves were delaying the industrial development of the nation. Once again, economic gain.
As the song said, "money makes the world go round". Money, not ethics.
Posted by: cruzado at September 28, 2005 8:31 PM
PS: Catherine? When you write a whole sentence in CAPS, that means that you are shouting. I am too young to be deaf. Regards.
Posted by: cruzado at September 28, 2005 08:16 PM
THE main point is the ARABS WERE SLAVE TRADERS??
I AINT SHOUTING??
http://www.zum.de/psm/rta/doa21.php
Reichstagsakten 1888/89, 7. Lp., Vol. 121, Attachment 41: Collection of Documents pertaining the Uprising in East Africa, No.21: Report from the Imperial ambassador in London
London, August 1st 1888
Cardinal Lavagerie, who arrived here from Algiers in order to advocate measures against slavery, yesterday held his first, much frequented lecture in Prince's Hall.
The Cardinal described his 30 years experience in the service of the cause of the liberation of slaves; during these years, 11 of his missionaries have been murdered in Africa's interior, more than 50 died from the exertion coming with their task. Still, the conditions in that part of the world have continuously deteriorated, and even in the high (p.408) plateaus of Central Africa where nature provides best for the population, slave traders have caused destruction. These slave traders would penetrate into the interior from Morocco, Tunis, Zanzibar and Egypt, at certain times and with considerable power, and would not be resisted by the demoralized inhabitants.
Cardinal Lavagerie suggested an international conference and proposed that the slave trade would have to be ended by force, and by encouraging the inhabitants to resist.
On the same occasion, Lord Granville reminded of the attempts made at the Congresses of Vienna and Verona to terminate the slave trade and expressed the belief that still today the various nations could agree on concerted actions.
This latter view has been accepted by the assembly in form of a resolution.
signed Hatzfeldt
His Excellency Prince von Bismarck
http://www.zum.de/psm/rta/doa28.php
Reichstagsakten 1888/89, 7. Lp., Vol. 121, Attachment 41: Collection of Documents pertaining the Uprising in East Africa, No. 28: Directive to the Imperial ambassador in London
Friedrichsruh, October 28th 1888
It is to be desired that our agreement with England on fighting the slave trade and the import of weapons to East Africa will have the shape of an international agreement. Such a document would establish limits for the expansion of the continued expansion of the Muslim and slave trading movement, by the moral impression by the accord of the two European powers so far engaged there, and also, more propably, will lead to the cooperation of the other European states engaged. I propose the exchange of notifications between us and Britain, in which we take upon ourselves the obligation, under the condition (p.412) on an equal participation of Britain for the same purpose, to fight the anti-Christian and anti-civilizatoric movement which has emerged over the last years on the African continent, and to recognize the prohibition of the export of slaves and the import of arms and ammunition as the most effective means, as it is only the possession of superior arms ans ammunitions which enables the Arab and Muslim minority to undertake slave hunts and wars necessary to obtain slaves, and to keep up the superiority of their race in Africa's interior.
The slave trade and the initiative Britain has taken to combat it, have been origin and incentive to the union of all elements interested in the matter, and which have made it possible to use Muslim fanaticism in the interest of this over one thousand years old tradition of African slave trade and to call on them for war. The effects of this movement, large and small, can be seen in the positions of the Mahdi, of Tippu Tip and in the rising number of murders of Europeans in Africa's interior. To transfer christianity and European civilization to Africa by armed force is not feasible because of the width of the country and of the climate. The indigenous population would be susceptible to the European efforts if it was not suppressed by the force of arms, the higher intelligence and the
cohesion of the Arab Muslims. We could outmatch the latter only, if we strike at the source of their superiority, superior armament and the realisation of their profits, by the suppression of the import of arms and the export of slaves.
Therefore I regard it a task no Christian nation should exclude itself from, to interrupt as far as possible the import of weapons and ammunition to Africa's interior and the export of slaves. This task shall be mainly taken care of by the two powers most interested in the Sultanate of Zanzibar, Germany and Britain; but to its complete solution it is recommended, to, soon, gain the cooperation of the neighbouring Portuguese government and of His Majesty the King of Belgium for the Congo Free State. It is also recommended to kindly ask the French government for their cooperation, in order to prevent arms import into the Congo area and in order to end the abuse of the French flag in East Africa by Arab dhows.
Your Excellency will request Lord Salisbury to confirm his approval with these opinions by a note to Sir Edward Malet, in order to cause the British navy to join in a concerted blockade of the Zanzibar coast, and, like us, but operating separately, to ask the previously mentioned governments to decree respective instructions.
signed von Bismarck
Your Excellency the Imperial Ambassador
Count von Hatzfeldt
YOU SEE JUST POSTING A BIT OF HISTORY??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
at September 29, 2005 12:14 AM
"black slaves are expensive while a dead Irishman costs nothing".
This goes back to my discussion my friend of Irish parentage and I had about our refusal to feel guilt and apologise over the black slave trade of 250 years ago.
That the rich landowners regarded both our ancestors (although I only have Irish gx4parents) and a West Indian's ancestors on a par with animals. But whereas the black slave was valuable livestock, who cost money to buy and had to be fed, our British poor ancestors were vermin, to be harried off the land and disposed of pdq. Although I take the point that 2 wrongs don't make a right and they at least had the freedom where to go (in my families case London) and how else to try to make a living if they survived.
at September 29, 2005 3:13 AM
Naseem wrote: Other countries like the US may well try to change their constitution to try and hold back the tide....
I don't think we'd need to amend our constitution to deal with Islam. I've posted before how the original intent of the wording could be intepreted to allow the prosciption of the presence and pratice of the religion and ideology that is Islam. With the addition of John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS we could very well bring such a law and get it to stick on the grounds that the US is a Christian nation according to previous rulings and that Islam is antithetical to the survival thereof.
at September 29, 2005 5:36 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)