The Sidis: Africans in India

[xXx]

http://www.afropop.org/multi/feature...ia+to+Tanzania

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/fo...cindians.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ies/html/1.stm

http://www.raceandhistory.com/histor...ansofindia.htm

http://www.afrika.no/Detailed/3895.html

funny how they placed "added" emphasis on the old "slave" tag when most of these Africans came to India as merchants, sailors, etc...

[xXx]

here's some more true knowledge on the Sidi

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...&client=safari

A little scholarly dissertation throws a curveball in the default assumption that Africans world wide in the course of global history have been nothing more than "slaves".

The Sidis of Jambur are supposed to have originally come from Kano in Nigeria
via the Sudan and Mecca after their Hajj pilgrimage. Their leader was a wealthy
merchant by the name of Baba Ghor who first settled in the Rajpipla Hills near
Broach and Cambay (Khambat) where he developed mining and trade in agate, the
precious stone known as Akik in India (and Akiki in Eastern Africa)

Very few African slaves
were brought to the Indian sub-continent to provide cheap labour.

African slaves was an expensive affair since local Indian feudal systems related to
slavery provided ample cheap or free labour to rulers, land-owners and the upper
castes. The rulers of India could also obtain slaves of various categories from other
parts of Asia, eastern Europe and the Caucasus. The descendants of these slaves in
the Muslim societies generally cannot be distinguished as racial or ethnic groups or
minorities, since most of them were employed in the higher administration and the
armies, serving different governments and marrying the natives. They were a kind
of life-long loyal servants of the ruler, rather than slaves in the Western sense.

[DJPePe]

I've seen quite a few of them whenever I visit Karachi (last time being years ago).

Funny how the opposite is occurring in the Persian Gulf when they are bringing cheap labor from the subcontinent to build their gleaming skyscrapers under crap conditions.

[TheAmazon]

Thanks, i'm fascinated with Indian Culture. The little information that I have come across in regards to the Sidi's mentioned nothing of them , some at least descended from merchants etc.

[xXx]

Originally Posted by TheAmazon

Thanks, i'm fascinated with Indian Culture. The little information that I have come across in regards to the Sidi's mentioned nothing of them , some at least descended from merchants etc.

Very few African slaves
were brought to the Indian sub-continent to provide cheap labour.

the vast MAJORITY were traders, sailors, merchants, etc. the "slave" tag has to be thrown out there to soothe the minds of those who can't grasp the concept that Africans did more for the world than provide free labor and actually were pretty adept at circumventing the seas.

[xXx]

Here's a recent book on the subject

AFRICAN ELITES IN INDIA
http://www.amazon.com/African-Elites.../dp/1890206970

http://www.nysun.com/article/58605

[PETA]

Originally Posted by xXx

the vast MAJORITY were traders, sailors, merchants, etc. the "slave" tag has to be thrown out there to soothe the minds of those who can't grasp the concept that Africans did more for the world than provide free labor and actually were pretty adept at circumventing the seas.

Alvin, that you think no one can grasp that Africans ever provided more than cheap labor simply provides you false fuel for your baffling anger.

That you lump all African culture through milenia without regard to ethnicity, geography and era into one monolithic block is another baffling mistake of yours but any attempts to illustrate why your understanding of a lot of the history you present is bunk pretty much proves to you that you were right - white people don't get it... how come? Well, isn't it obvious? They don't buy the spoon fed pablum you swallow down if it reads like something you'd like to believe.

The Siddis.. some were, some weren't slaves. Some were, some weren't traders. Some were, some weren't soldiers. etc etc etc What is important today is the culture they have not how some of them got there in the past.

[xXx]

Alvin, that you think no one can grasp that Africans ever provided more than cheap labor simply provides you false fuel for your baffling anger.

I'm not angry about anything.

That you lump all African culture through milenia without regard to ethnicity, geography and era into one monolithic block is another baffling mistake of yours but any attempts to illustrate why your understanding of a lot of the history you present is bunk pretty much proves to you that you were right - white people don't get it... how come?

I'm not the one "lumping" Africans and trying to explain their existence in a civilisation by offering up the "they came as slaves" tag when it doesn't really fit the circumstances.

Well, isn't it obvious? They don't buy the spoon fed pablum you swallow down if it reads like something you'd like to believe.

the same way the authors "spoon feed" the world the FALSE presumption that these people traveled to a country as slaves to better explain their presence.

The Siddis.. some were, some weren't slaves. Some were, some weren't traders. Some were, some weren't soldiers. etc etc etc What is important today is the culture they have not how some of them got there in the past.

Obviously it's important to some to reinforce a false doctrine that seeks to downplay the accomplishments of a group of people by emphasizing slavery even when it is totally tertiary at best.

[GLopez]

I think of Africans as my friends and everday people... not slaves or traders, sailors or merchants.

[xXx]

Originally Posted by GLopez

I think of Africans as my friends and everday people... not slaves or traders, sailors or merchants.

thats the way the world saw the "blameless Ethiops" until the cruel institution of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade...which had to be justified to explain it's exsistence which turned humans into something sub human.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by xXx

I'm not angry about anything.

Pull the other one.

Originally Posted by xXx

I'm not the one "lumping" Africans and trying to explain their existence in a civilisation by offering up the "they came as slaves" tag when it doesn't really fit the circumstances.

Well, the fact is that large numbers of Siddis did get there as slaves sold by the Portuguese or Arab slabe traders. Denying this is as silly as denying that many came as sailors, merchants and mercenaries.

Originally Posted by xXx

the same way the authors "spoon feed" the world the FALSE presumption that these people traveled to a country as slaves to better explain their presence.

This is what I mean by "silly." Alvin, many did get there as slaves. Some would argue that the largest influx of that population came as slaves... I'm not sure if that's true or not true. But what cannot be denied is that many did arrive as slaves.

Originally Posted by xXx

Obviously it's important to some to reinforce a false doctrine that seeks to downplay the accomplishments of a group of people by emphasizing slavery even when it is totally tertiary at best.

It isn't false Alvin. Slavery may not be (and it may be) the prime source for that population but it is unquestionablly a significant one. That doesn't diminsh their status as a community. Nor would does a background as a sailor, mercenary or trader increase it.

Originally Posted by xXx

thats the way the world saw the "blameless Ethiops" until the cruel institution of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade...which had to be justified to explain it's exsistence which turned humans into something sub human.

So slavery began with triangular trade routes? Jeebus Alvin. The Euros bought them from Africans and Arabs in Africa - they didn't introduce the practice to them. They exploited it to be sure and deserve the dim view history has given them but you seem to be ignoring the Arab/African angle here.

[GLopez]

Originally Posted by xian

So slavery began with triangular trade routes? Jeebus Alvin. The Euros bought them from Africans and Arabs in Africa - they didn't introduce the practice to them. They exploited it to be sure and deserve the dim view history has given them but you seem to be ignoring the Arab/African angle here.

You might be better off using your fingers to crack open a cold one rather than making them work on keystrokes that I doubt Triple-X would ever consider as part of the story.

[xXx]

Pull the other one.

...

Well, the fact is that large numbers of Siddis did get there as slaves sold by the Portuguese or Arab slabe traders. Denying this is as silly as denying that many came as sailors, merchants and mercenaries.

ok einstein, what are these "large numbers" you speak of? I already posted evidence that counters this theory...

Very few African slaves
were brought to the Indian sub-continent to provide cheap labour.

African slaves was an expensive affair since local Indian feudal systems related to
slavery provided ample cheap or free labour to rulers, land-owners and the upper
castes. The rulers of India could also obtain slaves of various categories from other
parts of Asia, eastern Europe and the Caucasus. The descendants of these slaves in
the Muslim societies generally cannot be distinguished as racial or ethnic groups or
minorities, since most of them were employed in the higher administration and the
armies, serving different governments and marrying the natives. They were a kind
of life-long loyal servants of the ruler, rather than slaves in the Western sense.

This is what I mean by "silly." Alvin, many did get there as slaves. Some would argue that the largest influx of that population came as slaves... I'm not sure if that's true or not true. But what cannot be denied is that many did arrive as slaves.

again where are you getting your information from? There's evidence that other asians and yes WHITES were sold as "slaves" but the global concensus is that ONLY the African traveled to other nations PRIMARILY as slaves. Which is why you have this over emphasis on the "African as slave" dogma

It isn't false Alvin. Slavery may not be (and it may be) the prime source for that population but it is unquestionablly a significant one. That doesn't diminsh their status as a community. Nor would does a background as a sailor, mercenary or trader increase it.

how can it be "significant" when the only evidence of this is purely in the minds of those who prescribe to the whole African "Slav-o-mania" mentality. If African slavery was so prominent in India, where is the hard evidence of their forced servitude outside of the fact that they are African...and we all know that African is synonomous with the term "slave".

If a group of people were under some form of subjugation...wouldn't they have some record of their emancipation(ie, Juneteenth, 4th of July,Bastille Day,etc.).

So slavery began with triangular trade routes? Jeebus Alvin. The Euros bought them from Africans and Arabs in Africa - they didn't introduce the practice to them. They exploited it to be sure and deserve the dim view history has given them but you seem to be ignoring the Arab/African angle here.

Did I say that? No I didn't.

Every culture has had some form of "slavery" but the Trans-Atlantic slave trade transformed a people into subhuman terms based on RACE. Didn't Rome "exploit" slavery and the dim view history seem to be ignoring the Roman subjugation of other Europeans...

[Jason-X]

Originally Posted by xXx

the "slave" tag has to be thrown out there to soothe the minds of those who can't grasp the concept that Africans did more for the world than provide free labor and actually were pretty adept at circumventing the seas.

I've never really chimed in any of the stuff you post up Alvin, so i wouldn't think i'd be one of the militia guys you speak of. However that doesn't mean i go without my doubts on some of the topics you bring to light either. This statement has me curious though. Why is it that you need to prove or seek to prove the validity of the African/American race? I have several conclussion's to this , but i'm mainly intrested in yours.

I see this in most if not all your post, and for someone like me who gets on here and reads these , it sure does come off like there is a lack of validness in your mind for the African/American race. Just curious

[xXx]

Originally Posted by Jason-X

I've never really chimed in any of the stuff you post up Alvin, so i wouldn't think i'd be one of the militia guys you speak of. However that doesn't mean i go without my doubts on some of the topics you bring to light either. This statement has me curious though. Why is it that you need to prove or seek to prove the validity of the African/American race? I have several conclussion's to this , but i'm mainly intrested in yours.

I see this in most if not all your post, and for someone like me who gets on here and reads these , it sure does come off like there is a lack of validness in your mind for the African/American race. Just curious

On the subject of race, I have said it before and I will say it again...in order for for the taboo subject of "race" to become a non-issue we should have open, frank and in depth discussion about the issue instead of always skirting the issue or trying to avoid it all together.

Obviously it's in the minds of the authors(and many others) of these articles/book that they can't seem to get around the concept that Africans traveled the world as something other than captive subjects.



It's important enough for so-called "scholars" who (are ultra quick to) link the African to slavery no matter what the circumstance...which would lend one to believe that there is a "lack of validness" in their minds for HISTORICALLY downplaying and minimalizing the global contribution of the African to the world(by turning Africa into the "dark" continent a backward place of no culture whatsoever)...which in turn lend credence to the notion that Western thought must downplay African contributions to "prove" the superiority of Western culture.

What's gonna be the scholarly explaination if they find evidence of the African being on the moon...I can see it now..."no one knows exactly how they got on the moon and for lack of a better explaination that MUST mean they traveled the cosmos as slaves"