jaylar
When one reads history there must be an ‘instant’ recognition of who wrote it, when it was written, and the purpose.
In some cases, where the compiler couldn’t care less, the history is more honest. No need to create heroes and villains, no need to use adjectives and adverbs.
In some cases, .there are vested interests or an overriding purpose.
Most people do not know of Mansa Musa, of the Mali Empire, Most people do not know those dangerous Corsairs were Africans. Most people do not know that ‘ransoms’ were paid to have white slaves released.
That so prevalent was the capture of ships and persons by the Africans that Lloyds of London came into being.
The idea that the white man always conquered the black man has been instituted to create a sense of superiority/inferiority which exists to this day.
How many history books, admit the power of those Corsairs who ruled the Mediterranean? How many Americans know of the Tripolitan War? How many European are aware that for hundreds of years tribute had to be paid to permit a ship to travel in the Mediterranean?
How many know that Columbus’ voyages were not to find ‘the new world’ but to find a route to avoid having to travel through areas controlled by Africans?
All this information is available, but never put on the front page. This is the manipulation of history.
