>>939028882
Not true. Europeans went to the Americas and enslaved the Native Americans first, but they were too weak for the work. Some died on the job, but a lot prefered suicide over subjugation.
After losing their husbands entire villages committed mass suicide by jumping off cliffs to not have to subjugated to the Europeans. It's sad, but very true. And I have no doubt that you find this very funny.
After this, the Spanish Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas pleaded with the king to bring over African slaves as they are more resilient.
If you're interested in his pleas you can read "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies". It's his account of the brutalities he saw the Spanish commit in the Americas.
That's why there are Africans in the Americas now. The Arabs had little to do with it.
There was slavery in West-Africa. POW's and debtors were enslaved worked in households, sometimes were mistreated but nothing on the scale or with the brutality or racism of the Europeans. So the Europeans would have easily been able to buy slaves from as long as the West-Africans wouldn't know about the brutalities.
they later came to know of the atrocities and they went to war. the king of the Kongo even forced the Portugese to return over a 1000 slaves.
So you can say that Africans had slaves, but slavery and chattel slavery are not the same. You're being disingenuous when you try to conflate the 2.
Then again, racists are disingenuous by nature.

I like global- and religious history so you can't win this battle, lil man.