An Australian museum excluded men from an exhibit to highlight misogyny. A man sued for access and won.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/mkwF8
An Australian museum excluded men from an exhibit to highlight misogyny. A man sued for access and won.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/mkwF8
it seems kind of obvious what their test for “non-muslim” likely was
White people can’t say
أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّٰهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ ٱللَّٰهِIn front of two witnesses?
i really don’t imagine it would’ve made much difference, kind of like how an african that was also albino still would’ve ended up enslaved
Again you’re trying to conflate things which are not the same (war captives and society-wide anti-Blackness actualizing in dehumanization and chattel enslavement. )
and using weak “seems obvious” “can’t imagine” arguments to do it.
If a captured ship had white and non-white non-muslims on it, do you imagine only the white non-muslims would be enslaved and everyone else let go?
No, because being oppressed while being white is not being oppressed for being white.
Further, your comment about albinism proves you understand race to be a social construct.
where are you getting “war captives”?
i imagine instances probably occurred both ways
do you think a captured ship with only black non-muslims on it would’ve been captured in the first place?
do you think a coastal settlement with a population of only black non-muslims would’ve been raided for slaves?
if race didn’t exist, american chattel slavery still would’ve done, because the social construct is invented afterwards to justify the act
the same appears to be true here, just with “non-muslim” being the back-engineered justification
You don’t consider Barbary raids an act of war?
Capitalize Black. And “Yes.” on both counts.
You can’t change race by reciting The Shahada.
And irrespective anything you have said white people have never been oppressed for being white; the original assertion which started this discussion that is only tangentially related to an OP about women excluding men from an art exhibit (they didn’t want to go to anyway) as performance art.
assuming i did, declaring war just so you can capture whites to sell as slaves seems kind of oppress-y to me
given that the point of contention here is whether or not it was ultimately because they were white or because they were non-muslim, i’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by re-classifying piracy as an act of war?
i didn’t use any capital letters in my response, including on “muslim” which you’d capitalize for the same reasons you’re arguing to capitalize “black”
also, your linked source says to capitalize “white”, which you’ve done at no point so far
i feel like we’ve hit bedrock then
i’m not sure how to convince you that pirate raids that went all the way to iceland just to avoid “muslims” probably wouldn’t raid a settlement consisting of black non-muslims
i feel like you’re intentionally missing my point here
you restating a thing doesn’t make that thing true though…?
not really sure there’s much point in going on further with this since it seems like we have pretty different reads on the topic at hand that aren’t going to be brought into alignment through further discussion
Where are you getting the were targeted for being white and not for being targets of opportunity?
It remains true whether or not I restate it, Was restated for you benefit since you seem to be willfully ignoring it.
Where are you getting that? You seem to be working backwards from wanting white people to have been oppressed.
Arabs absolutely enslaved Black Africans. Any Europeans who found themselves enslaved by Barbary pirates were not targeted or oppressed for being white (as has never happened to anyone, ever); some of the Barbary pirates were European.