Why didn't the East colonise Australia?

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,483
Londinium
If you are agreeing with me that not all Arab sailors were slave-traders then we have nothing further to discuss. I suggest you stick to topic.
Again, I'm saying that your speculation is incorrect and that any Arab discovery of Australia would have introduced slavery to Australia, as per their other expansions or explorations.

You introduced this argument of "not all Arab sailors are slavers", and now your trying to move away from the actual point of disagreement by using this straw man, the "then we have nothing further to discuss" line is always a tell.
 
Mar 2019
1,733
KL
Sri Lanka would probably disagree with that statement.
srilanka was never colonized the story of indians/indo aryans colonizing srilanka is just a myth, the sinhalese language is categorized as southern islandic indo aryan, if we connect konkan coast to lashadweep and maldives, there is geographical continuity of sinhalse language/southern indo aryan.

regards
 
Aug 2018
556
Southern Indiana
srilanka was never colonized the story of indians/indo aryans colonizing srilanka is just a myth, the sinhalese language is categorized as southern islandic indo aryan, if we connect konkan coast to lashadweep and maldives, there is geographical continuity of sinhalse language/southern indo aryan.

regards
They tried
 
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
Again, I'm saying that your speculation is incorrect and that any Arab discovery of Australia would have introduced slavery to Australia, as per their other expansions or explorations.

You introduced this argument of "not all Arab sailors are slavers", and now your trying to move away from the actual point of disagreement by using this straw man, the "then we have nothing further to discuss" line is always a tell.
You are straw maning me. What has the post of Swamp Booger and my response to it, any thing to do with your attempts of derailing this thread?. You tried to divert the discussion to Arab slave trade and its evilness (for some reason you want to badly highlight and discuss it here). I forced you to discuss it in the context of the topic.

Since you agreed with me that not all Arab sailors were slave-traders, your initial refutation of my post vaporizes. We have nothing further to discuss my friend.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,483
Londinium
You are straw maning me. What has the post of Swamp Booger and my response to it, any thing to do with your attempts of derailing this thread?. You tried to divert the discussion to Arab slave trade and its evilness (for some reason you want to badly highlight and discuss it here). I forced you to discuss it in the context of the topic.



Since you agreed with me that not all Arab sailors were slave-traders, your initial refutation of my post vaporizes. We have nothing further to discuss my friend.

The Arab slave trade was evil, as they all were - and in some more backward parts of the world, still are.


Three strawman arguments from yourself in one post;

I have not once stated that all Arab sailors were slave traders;

I have not derailed this thread – I have disagreed with your speculation based on historical knowledge.

I don’t want to badly discuss the Arab slave trade – just provide some background, with citations, to your speculation.

Just for your own information, or anyone else reading, as you state above, “[your] initial refutation of my post vaporizes” here is your initial post I responded to, then all my subsequent posts in this thread. This will also underline that I’ve only wanted to correct your entirely false speculation by using historical knowledge, only to be met with strawman arguments plus a few insults thrown in, ready? Here we go….



Arab sailors were not violent colonizers as you imagine them to be. If they had found Australia, they would have peacefully settle along its shores (like they did along African and Asian coasts) and would have heavily intermarried with aborigines, so that their descendants today would have been indistinguishable from other Aborigines.


If you're going to speculate, at least provide some grounding in reality. Have you never heard of the Arab slave trade, which began before and ended after that of the European (Atlantic)?

It sounds like you're projecting the morality of today (mostly western in origin) onto the Arab's over some time in the past.

I never made such statement, don’t put words in my mouth and/or create a strawman. Re-read my post please. All I highlighted was that when Arabic expansions, trade and/or settlement occurred, slavery was established. For example in east Africa. Therefore the notion that this would not have occurred in Australia is wholly without historical basis and I believe to be a fanciful interpretation of Arabic interactions with non-Arab or non-Muslim populations.

Unlike in the western world (the following example relates to the UK), the practice of slavery is well established within Arabic nations, http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/amcdouga/Hist494/Team 1/enslavement manumission 1926-38.pdf, even less a hundred years ago. Or there are the slave rebellions (who were predominantly black Africans) under the so-called rightly guided Caliphs, see link at the bottom for how this continues to be considered part of Islamic doctrine and not just “an Arab thing”.

Saudi Arabia banned Slavery in 1962 – about 190 or 122 years since the UK/England banned slavery (1772 or 1833)

With even some interpreting Islamic holy text in this manner;
History of slavery in the Muslim world - Wikipedia]

EDIT: I forgot to include the post I was responding to, all fixed now.

I simply followed your lead, some understanding of chronology would help this discussion.

If you'd like to continue this discussion then perhaps start a new thread on Arab/Islamic slave trade? I can only assume that my previous posts contain sufficient sources and information to show that alongside the Arab expansion came enslavement, which spanned far longer than the western-based slave trade.

As my sources show, I’m far from clueless on this topic. If you’re going to start a post with an insult then I suggest you don’t continue with the rest of it.

The historical facts remain – the Arabs routinely engaged in enslavement of local populations. I’m not going to debate the “life of a slave” within an Arabic dominated culture or society as this is even more OT – all I wanted to do is flag up that *your* speculation (take ownership of what you right, even in response to someone else) regarding the Arabic spread to Australia would have come with wide-scale and long lasting slave system RE: my previous links and any reading you’d care to do regarding Zanzibar/Omani/Arab slave trade in East Africa, as well as within the Arabian peninsula itself. There is plenty of information on this online.

I have never stated that Arab sailors were only slave traders, and I haven't made such generalizations, nor did I infer similar.

Stop putting words in my mouth and/or creating straw man arguments.

I've already made my single point very clear, to reiterate; your speculation regarding the interactions of Arabs explorers to Aus. and implementing slavery is false; Arabs routinely engaged in slavery throughout their travels/within areas of their control. Notably e.Africa
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,411
Australia
You guys are STILL arguing about what would have happened if ....

While the thread is about , why didn't it happen .

So you ALL off topic !
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,062
Navan, Ireland
but arabs never engaged in slave trade outside east coast of africa, for instance india, south east asia, china etc

this only means one thing, that slave trade in east africa was an established tradition since a very long time

View attachment 20897

Slave market, with Nubian slaves waiting to be sold

Slavery in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia
So because slavery existed in the ancient world the Arab slave trade into Africa is Ok? rather strange logic.

And also you are wrong that Arab/Muslim slaving did not exist elsewhere for instance many many Europeans were enslaved from as far off places as Iceland and Ireland
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,062
Navan, Ireland
not anymore .
Well to get back to topic.

1. Australia is a long way away from all of them you need quite sophisticated naval expertise to support a colony even for Europeans (esp the British) it was still touch and go and they were way more advanced than any preceding naval power at the end of the 18th century.

2. Its not a video game -- you don't reach Australia and 'end of level' and suddenly all the maps of Australia appear-- it was a remote land with what? any thing worth trading? the local people were still in the stoneage ok slaves but there is not that many of them and you have to sail past/further than more promising places.

Remember context we didn't know about whole chunks of the world, why would China and India want to go to a far off land where there was 'nothing'?

Were they going through the Industrial revolution with the ability explore and populations expanding and wanting 'new worlds'?

Oh and was there an 'India'? No -- princes Emperors etc of various places but any of them have the ability to spend vast sums acquiring and empty island?
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8