Pourquoi on ne dit jamais “traite européo-chrétienne” ? Pourquoi dit-on “traite arabo-musulmane” mais presque jamais “traite européo-chrétienne” ? Parce que les mots sont politiques. Parce que la traite transatlantique a été pensée comme un système économique dès le premier jour. Et parce que les religions, dans les deux cas, ont servi d’habillage moral, jamais de cause. Mettons les mots justes sur l’histoire. #HistoireCritique #HistoireDécoloniale #MémoireAfricana #education

"Why do we talk about trade with Muslim Arabians and not European Christians?" And this is one of the questions posed by my students, and I find it very interesting. So it's important that this is a choice. Indeed, a thermologically modern choice has different uses in the historiography. Trade with Muslim Arabians is very transatlantic. We mentioned a video about a professor in TikTok, and yes, he's totally right. And I'm going to go even a little further. The words we use to talk about trade are never new. He says that the story wants to show, and especially what he wants to hide. Appellations, as you know, are never natural. These are political and social constructions. When we talk about trade with Muslim Arabians, and people with similar errors, we also have a system to a religion, that is to say Islam. When we talk about transatlantic, we are fundamentally European and Christian. However, without further ado in our organization, these terms come from Western historiography, which choose what they want to go into. I take a very good example with Olivier Petrer-Groniu, who is very well known for this. In his new sentence, you can see Christianism and slavery. In the epilogue, we can read this. After the abolition of the Islamic Church in the United States, a path turns, the Christians are more directly involved, and the trait of the Atlantic has disappeared in the 1960s. And as we descend a little more, he writes this too. What to say about the attitude and the role of the Christians? First, those who oppose slavery in the reason of their faith are very often almost only Christian. So you see, this is the propaganda that I want to say, the continuity of the Friedrichs' theory by a lot of Western historiants. However, the term is just on one point. This system is just about Islamized peoples, very different. We talk about Arab, Persians, Bersperians, Swaly, Sudanese and even Indian. So not only Arabs, it is a term that describes a civilisation rather than a ethnic one. But on the contrary, it remains to be lost. It also has the trait and religion, which can give the illusion that religion is the cause. So, it simply serves as a support and ideology as justification after all. Disarmament. If we apply the same logic, we should say, rather, the European-Christian trait. These are Christian kings who organize and finance the system. Portugal, Spain, France, England, and the country. The forces of the Christians, the kings of the Christians, and the black code are explicitly created in a Christian frame. But this term has never been used. Why? Because it puts light in fact very disturbing. The contradiction between the Christian moral and the reality of the Islamist system, even if, as he said, and I agree with him, there are a lot of Christians who are revolted against this system. And also, there is another reason. The transatlantic trait is designed as an economic enterprise of the first days. It is to say that it is a system of investment, of profit, of maximization during the time. The Western historians also love it. So, I agree, as you imagine, with the transatlantic term, because it makes you believe that we talk about a commercial space and not a moral responsibility. And that is more neutral, more and more technical. In the two cases, it must be very clear and very impressive. Neither Christianity, nor Islam, are the cause profound traits. The States, the elites, the market, we all use these religions as a pretext, as a moral habit. And the central motivation remains the same. The domination, the expansion, and the economic profile. So yes, the words are geopolitical, oriented and very interested. And so, we do not let them go. On the other hand, of the essentials, that is to say, who protects the story and who accuses it.