Truths about slavery
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Ambitious Aloysius

Washington, DC

#1 Mar 1, 2013
SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies. Current thinking suggests that human beings took a crucial leap toward civilization about 10,000 years ago with the submission, training and domestication of important animal species (cows, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, horses and so forth) and, at the same time, began the “domestication,” bestialization and ownership of fellow human beings captured as prisoners in primitive wars. In ancient Greece, the great philosopher Aristotle described the ox as “the poor man’s slave” while Xenophon likened the teaching of slaves “to the training of wild animals.” Aristotle further opined that “it is clear that there are certain people who are free and certain who are slaves by nature, and it is both to their advantage, and just, for them to be slaves.” The Romans seized so many captives from Eastern Europe that the terms “Slav” and “slave” bore the same origins. All the great cultures of the ancient world, from Egypt to Babylonia, Athens to Rome, Persia to India to China, depended upon the brutal enslavement of the masses – often representing heavy majorities of the population. Contrary to the glamorization of aboriginal New World cultures, the Mayas, Aztecs and Incas counted among the most brutal slave-masters of them all --- not only turning the members of other tribes into harshly abused beasts of burden but also using these conquered enemies to feed a limitless lust for human sacrifice. The Tupinamba, a powerful tribe on the coast of Brazil south of the Amazon, took huge numbers of captives, then humiliated them for months or years, before engaging in mass slaughter of their victims in ritualized cannibalistic feasts. In Africa, slavery also represented a timeless norm long before any intrusion by Europeans. Moreover, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch or British slave traders rarely penetrated far beyond the coasts: the actual capture and kidnapping of the millions of victims always occurred at the hands of neighboring tribes. As the great African-American historian Nathan Huggins pointed out, “virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans” but the concept of an African “race” was the invention of Western colonists, and most African traders “saw themselves as selling people other than their own.” In the final analysis, Yale historian David Brion Davis in his definitive 2006 history “Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World” notes that “colonial North America…surprisingly received only 5 to 6 percent of the African slaves shipped across the Atlantic.” Meanwhile, the Arab slave trade (primarily from East Africa) lasted longer and enslaved more human beings than the European slavers working the other side of the continent. According to the best estimates, Islamic societies shipped between 12 and 17 million African slaves out of their homes in the course of a thousand years; the best estimate for the number of Africans enslaved by Europeans amounts to 11 million. In other words, when taking the prodigious and unspeakably cruel Islamic enslavements into the equation, at least 97% of all African men, women and children who were kidnapped, sold, and taken from their homes, were sent somewhere other than the British colonies of North America. In this context there is no historical basis to claim that the United States bears primary, or even prominent guilt for the depredations of centuries of African slavery.

“I love being a Black Man”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#2 Mar 1, 2013
Ambitious Aloysius wrote:
In other words, when taking the prodigious and unspeakably cruel Islamic enslavements into the equation, at least 97% of all African men, women and children who were kidnapped, sold, and taken from their homes, were sent somewhere other than the British colonies of North America. In this context there is no historical basis to claim that the United States bears primary, or even prominent guilt for the depredations of centuries of African slavery.
Since the majority of us are decedents of Slaves brought to North America. That is all we really care about.

Thanks.
Ambitious Aloysius

Washington, DC

#3 Mar 1, 2013
THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT. Historians agree that hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of slaves perished over the course of 300 years during the rigors of the “Middle Passage” across the Atlantic Ocean. Estimates remain inevitably imprecise, but range as high as one third of the slave “cargo” who perished from disease or overcrowding during transport from Africa. Perhaps the most horrifying aspect of these voyages involves the fact that no slave traders wanted to see this level of deadly suffering: they benefited only from delivering (and selling) live slaves, not from tossing corpses into the ocean. By definition, the crime of genocide requires the deliberate slaughter of a specific group of people; slavers invariably preferred oppressing and exploiting live Africans rather than murdering them en masse. Here, the popular, facile comparisons between slavery and the Holocaust quickly break down: the Nazis occasionally benefited from the slave labor of their victims, but the ultimate purpose of facilities like Auschwitz involved mass death, not profit or productivity. For slave owners and slave dealers in the New World, however, death of your human property cost you money, just as the death of your domestic animals would cause financial damage. And as with their horses and cows, slave owners took pride and care in breeding as many new slaves as possible. Rather than eliminating the slave population, profit-oriented masters wanted to produce as many new, young slaves as they could. This hardly represents a compassionate or decent way to treat your fellow human beings, but it does amount to the very opposite of genocide. As David Brion Davis reports, slave holders in North America developed formidable expertise in keeping their “bondsmen” alive and healthy enough to produce abundant offspring. The British colonists took pride in slaves who “developed an almost unique and rapid rate of population growth, freeing the later United States from a need for further African imports.”

ALSO IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES. Pennsylvania passed an emancipation law in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island followed four years later (all before the Constitution). New York approved emancipation in 1799. These states (with dynamic banking centers in Philadelphia and Manhattan) quickly emerged as robust centers of commerce and manufacturing, greatly enriching themselves while the slave-based economies in the South languished by comparison. At the time of the Constitution, Virginia constituted the most populous and wealthiest state in the Union, but by the time of the War Between the States the Old Dominion had fallen far behind a half-dozen northern states that had outlawed slavery two generations earlier. All analyses of Northern victory in the great sectional struggle highlights the vast advantages in terms of wealth and productivity in New England, the Mid-Atlantic States and the Midwest, compared to the relatively backward and impoverished states of the Confederacy. While a few elite families in the Old South undoubtedly based their formidable fortunes on the labor of slaves, the prevailing reality of the planter class involved chronic indebtedness and shaky finances long before the ultimate collapse of the evil system of bondage. The notion that America based its wealth and development on slave labor hardly comports with the obvious reality that for two hundred years since the founding of the Republic, by far the poorest and least developed section of the nation was precisely that region where slavery once prevailed.

Since: Jun 08

Tulsa OK. & Lugano Switzerland

#4 Mar 1, 2013
Don't care about this.
I'm going to have a good weekend.
Ambitious Aloysius

Washington, DC

#5 Mar 1, 2013
Lastly.
WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION. In the course of scarcely more than a century following the emergence of the American Republic, men of conscience, principle and unflagging energy succeeded in abolishing slavery not just in the New World but in all nations of the West. During three eventful generations, one of the most ancient, ubiquitous and unquestioned of all human institutions (considered utterly indispensable by the “enlightened” philosophers of Greece and Rome) became universally discredited and finally illegal – with Brazil at last liberating all its slaves in 1888. This worldwide mass movement (spear-headed in Britain and elsewhere by fervent Evangelical Christians) brought about the most rapid and fundamental transformation in all human history. While the United States (and the British colonies that preceded our independence) played no prominent role in creating the institution of slavery, or even in establishing the long-standing African slave trade pioneered by Arab, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and other merchants long before the settlement of English North America, Americans did contribute mightily to the spectacularly successful anti-slavery agitation. As early as 1646, the Puritan founders of New England expressed their revulsion at the enslavement of their fellow children of God. When magistrates in Massachusetts discovered that some of their citizens had raided an African village and violently seized two natives to bring them across the Atlantic for sale in the New World, the General Court condemned “this haynos and crying sinn of man-stealing.” The officials promptly ordered the two blacks returned to their native land. Two years later, Rhode Island passed legislation denouncing the practice of enslaving Africans for life and ordered that any slaves “brought within the liberties of this Collonie” be set free after ten years “as the manner is with the English servants.” A hundred and thirty years later John Adams and Benjamin Franklin both spent most of their lives as committed activists in the abolitionist cause, and Thomas Jefferson included a bitter condemnation of slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence. This remarkable passage saw African bondage as “cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty” and described “a market where MEN should be bought and sold” as constituting “piratical warfare” and “execrable commerce.” Unfortunately, the Continental Congress removed this prescient, powerful denunciation in order to win approval from Jefferson’s fellow slave-owners, but the impact of the Declaration and the American Revolution remained a powerful factor in energizing and inspiring the international anti-slavery cause. Nowhere did idealists pay a higher price for liberation than they did in the United States of America.
Ambitious Aloysius

Washington, DC

#6 Mar 1, 2013
Confederate forces (very few of whom ever owned slaves) may not have fought consciously to defend the Peculiar Institution, but Union soldiers and sailors (particularly at the end of the war) proudly risked their lives for the emancipation cause. Julia Ward Howe’s powerful and popular “Battle Hymn of the Republic” called on Federal troops to follow Christ’s example:“as he died to make men holy/let us die to make men free.” And many of them did die, some 364,000 in four years of combat—or the stunning equivalent of five million deaths as a percentage of today’s United States population. Moreover, the economic cost of liberation remained almost unimaginable. In nearly all other nations, the government paid some form of compensation to slave-owners at the time of emancipation, but Southern slave-owners received no reimbursement of any kind when they lost an estimated $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars (about $70 billion in today’s dollars) of what Davis describes as a “hitherto legally accepted form of property.” The most notable aspect of America’s history with slavery doesn’t involve its tortured and bloody existence, but the unprecedented speed and determination with which abolitionists roused the national conscience and put this age-old evil to an end.

“I love being a Black Man”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#7 Mar 1, 2013
Ambitious Aloysius wrote:
Lastly.
WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION.
Haiti freed their slaves in 1801. America freed their slaves in 1865 and it took the highest amount of American casualties to achieve this.
Ambitious Aloysius

Washington, DC

#8 Mar 1, 2013
MumRa wrote:
<quoted text>
Haiti freed their slaves in 1801. America freed their slaves in 1865 and it took the highest amount of American casualties to achieve this.
Actually I don't believe that the Civil War was over slavery. The was a strong sentiment against slavery in the North but Lincoln shrewdly decided to declare the slaves free in order to weaken the South.

“I love being a Black Man”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#9 Mar 1, 2013
Ambitious Aloysius wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I don't believe that the Civil War was over slavery. The was a strong sentiment against slavery in the North but Lincoln shrewdly decided to declare the slaves free in order to weaken the South.
It was a good decision.

Level 5

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#10 Mar 1, 2013
The truth about slavery was that the Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. The South could have never raised an army to keep the slaves and the North could have never raised an army to free them. It was fought over States Rights and taxes. Cotton export taxes. The slave issue never became part of the war effort until the Emancipation Proclamation.

President Lincoln wanted to send the blacks to Grenada and it wasn’t to get rid of them. He felt that the blacks were not equal to the whites and they weren’t through no fault of their own. Being slaves and uneducated he knew they would have a very difficult time fitting into society. President Lincoln was right. History has proven that. President Lincoln thought by sending the blacks to Grenada they would have the opportunity to start their own country and their own government without the problems of white America. It was only upon the insistence of the black clergy he changed his mind. President Lincoln was never against slavery. The reason he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation was to gain support of the anti-slave movement behind his war effort. This is the truth about slavery.

“I love being a Black Man”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#11 Mar 1, 2013
Joe Chit wrote:
The truth about slavery was that the Civil War wasn't fought to free the slaves. The South could have never raised an army to keep the slaves and the North could have never raised an army to free them. It was fought over States Rights and taxes. Cotton export taxes. The slave issue never became part of the war effort until the Emancipation Proclamation.
President Lincoln wanted to send the blacks to Grenada and it wasn’t to get rid of them. He felt that the blacks were not equal to the whites and they weren’t through no fault of their own. Being slaves and uneducated he knew they would have a very difficult time fitting into society. President Lincoln was right. History has proven that. President Lincoln thought by sending the blacks to Grenada they would have the opportunity to start their own country and their own government without the problems of white America. It was only upon the insistence of the black clergy he changed his mind. President Lincoln was never against slavery. The reason he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation was to gain support of the anti-slave movement behind his war effort. This is the truth about slavery.
Well it worked. Lincoln was smart.
Stag_R_Lee

Scottsdale, AZ

#12 Mar 1, 2013
Ambitious Aloysius wrote:
SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies. Current thinking suggests that human beings took a crucial leap toward civilization about 10,000 years ago with the submission, training and domestication of important animal species (cows, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, horses and so forth) and, at the same time, began the “domestication,” bestialization and ownership of fellow human beings captured as prisoners in primitive wars. In ancient Greece, the great philosopher Aristotle described the ox as “the poor man’s slave” while Xenophon likened the teaching of slaves “to the training of wild animals.” Aristotle further opined that “it is clear that there are certain people who are free and certain who are slaves by nature, and it is both to their advantage, and just, for them to be slaves.” The Romans seized so many captives from Eastern Europe that the terms “Slav” and “slave” bore the same origins. All the great cultures of the ancient world, from Egypt to Babylonia, Athens to Rome, Persia to India to China, depended upon the brutal enslavement of the masses – often representing henslaved by Europeans amounts to 11 million. In other words, when taking the prodigious and unspeakably cruel Islamic enslavements into the equation, at least 97% of all African men, women and children who were kidnapped, sold, and taken from their homes, were sent somewhere other than the British colonies of North America. In this context there is no historical basis to claim that the United States bears primary, or even prominent guilt for the depredations of centuries of African slavery.
Virtually all the Jews living in Warsaw ghettos were identified and captured with the aid of other Jews, but no one is silly or stupid enough to suggest that Jews were responsible for their own internment in NAZI death camps. Similarly, By stressing Black involvement in the slave trade does not mean that Blacks are responsible for their own enslavement.
. In my next panel, I may be able to discuss Brion Davis.
.
What was distinctive about the African American slave trade has to do with the chattel aspects. You must distinguish slavery as it affects Black Americans and you first need to understand capitalism and the relationships between the slave and the market place as well as the effects of slave labor on the market. In fact, it may have been market forces that started, then ended the slave trade.
,
In addition, you need to consider scale. That is, the number of slaves transported from Africa is a consideration that dwarfs slavery at any one time in history. Subsequent domination of Africa nearly drove regional populations into extinction. Leopold's agents in the Congo is one example. Add to all of this the time frame. The amount of slaves transported within a few short centuries is astonishing. Finally, the American institutions that arose due to slavery wherein an entire culture, southern society was constructed on the basis of slavery. This institution has remnants today. Look, for example at the racism expressed on TOPIX.

Stag_R_Lee

Scottsdale, AZ

#13 Mar 1, 2013
D.B. Davis writes.
In his scholarship, Davis has been preoccupied with questions of evil, from homicide to slavery and racism. He has analyzed the historical circumstances and ideologies that gave rise to history's greatest horrors. He has sought to understand the ways cultures have "demonized" the Other; the bureaucratization of enslavement; and the relationship between collective violence and utopian and messianic ideals.
.
Taken from Wikopedia
I completely agree. An basic understanding that Ambitious Aloysius does not seem to understand.
Ephraim

UAE

#14 Mar 1, 2013
To hear Negroes you'd think slavery was only about them, mention someone else's and they are not interested, they just want their own pity party.

Negroes been enslaving Negroes for millenniums, and still do today in parts, for the equivalent cost of a big-mac meal.

When the British first tried to stop slavery in Africa they were met with fierce resistance, especially from the Muslims, one reason for the Mahdi's insurgency in the Sudan was because Gordon Pasha was trying to stop slavery - a huge portion of the Mahdi's income.

It's funny that other people with red, white and yellow skin were also slaves and indentured servants, yet you never hear them using it as an excuse for failure today.

Negroes need to grow the hell up.

“I love being a Black Man”

Level 8

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#15 Mar 1, 2013
Ephraim wrote:
To hear Negroes you'd think slavery was only about them, mention someone else's and they are not interested, they just want their own pity party.
Negroes been enslaving Negroes for millenniums, and still do today in parts, for the equivalent cost of a big-mac meal.
When the British first tried to stop slavery in Africa they were met with fierce resistance, especially from the Muslims, one reason for the Mahdi's insurgency in the Sudan was because Gordon Pasha was trying to stop slavery - a huge portion of the Mahdi's income.
It's funny that other people with red, white and yellow skin were also slaves and indentured servants, yet you never hear them using it as an excuse for failure today.
Negroes need to grow the hell up.
I'm American. I'm sure they weren't worried about what was going on with us. Why are you?

Get a life already.
the redeemer

Toronto, Canada

#16 Mar 1, 2013
you are going to love my comments on slavery and death.enjoy
the redeemer

Toronto, Canada

#17 Mar 1, 2013
1)Slavery and Economics in a nut shell
History before racialized slavery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_trade#Pers...
Slavery was a form of payment for debt obligations and practiced in several part of the world from romans,
Chinese,- Chinese slavery still often viewed its objects as "half-man, half-thing" (&#21322;&#20154;, &#21322;&#29289;).Slav ery was repeatedly abolished as a legally-recognized institution, including in a 1909 law[2][1] fully enacted in 1910,[3] although the practice continued until at least 1949.
Ming Dynasty
Upon his defeat of the Yuan dynasty, the Hongwu Emperor officially killed all slaves within China, although the practice continued.
The Javans sent 30,000 black slaves as tribute to the Ming Dynasty in 1381.
When the Ming Dynasty crushed the Miao Rebellions in 1460, they castrated 1,565 Miao boys, which resulted in the deaths of 329 of them, they were then turned into eunuch slaves. This event occurred during the rule of the Zhengtong Emperor (Yingcong or Ying Tsung). Since 329 of the boys died, even more were needed to be castrated.
The 1630s saw numerous slave revolts, prompting laws limiting the number of slaves per household.[1]
Contents
Persians “"Fifth Century Nippur: Texts of the Murasus and from Their Surroundings," by Matthew W. Stolper. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 53.(2001), pp. 83-132.
Another relevant article is
"The Neo-Babylonian Text from the Persepolis Fortification," by Matthew W. Stolper. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 43, No. 4.(Oct., 1984), pp. 299-310.
Here is one of the relevant passages from Persepolis:
Bel-iddin has received from Marduk-belSunu that silver, two minas and twenty-five shekels, the price of his slave.("1-5) Bel-iddin assumes guaranty against suits (brought by) improper or proper claimants (to the slave)(and against suits claiming) the status of king's servant, free citizen, temple oblate,(or)....(for the slave).
, even in Africa I Could list hundreds of citing but then I would spend all day proving my point.It is found and proven that slavery has existed in every culture all over the world and of which every race has been subject to intra and inter-racial slavery.The arab slave trade marginalized a race and saw it as a means for economic profit. Hence the arab slave trade and quranic texts explaining how one would treat a slave and what one can do with a slave.It largely explains why in Arabic abid and a identity for a black person are both abeed
Abeed
Abid (Arabic: plural Abeed & or El Abeed &) The name has been explained as being an allusion to the submission that Muslims owe to Allah. Meyer dismisses this as "efforts by propagandists" to "explain the term away" that are "at the least, disingenuous".[1]
It is commonly used by the Northern Sudanese to refer to Southern Sudanese, and the Southern Sudanese in their turn, stereotype the Northerners as "Mundukuru" and "Minga".[2][3] According to Professor Mahmood Mamdani however, conflicts in Sudan are not compatible with western pre-conceptions of "race".[4]
Francis Deng described the north-south division imposed by the British on Anglo-Egyptian Sudan as the British saying to the Northerners: "You Northerners are slave traders and you treat the Southerners like Abeed. Don't call them Abeed! They are slaves no longer.".
Jok Madut Jok argues that the Sudanese slave trade still persists in the 21st century, and that Southern Sudanese in cities in the North who take marginal and petty jobs, because they lack the political influence that rural Northerners have in the cities and because they lack the necessary skills for city life, are regarded as Abeed because of the social standing that is concomitant with such occupations. Dinka labourers earning just enough to cover their food costs have no social standing in the eyes of Northerners, and are treated as the property of landowners and merchants.
the redeemer

Toronto, Canada

#18 Mar 1, 2013
"Displaced Southerners", Jok states, "are at the bottom of the racial hierarchy in Northern Sudan.". He explains that they have no resources of their own and are thus highly dependent upon patronage and exploitative relationships with power brokers, with relations ranging from servitude through bonded work to being a means for attracting resources from foreign aid agencies. "The lines dividing slavery and cleap labour", he states, "are blurred.".[6]
the redeemer

Toronto, Canada

#19 Mar 1, 2013
The history of racialized Slavery
Key dates

700: Zanzibar becomes the main Arab slave trading post in Africa
1325: Mansa Musa, the king of Mali, makes his pilgrimage to Mecca carrying 500 slaves and 100 camels
1444: the first public sale of African slaves by Europeans takes place at Lagos, Portugal
1482: Portugal founds the first European trading post in Africa (Elmira, Gold Coast)
1500-1600: Portugal enjoys a virtual monopoly in the slave trade to the Americas
1528: the Spanish government issues "asientos" (contracts) to private companies for the trade of African slaves
1619: the Dutch begin the slave trade between Africa and America
1637: Holland captures Portugal's main trading post in Africa, Elmira
1650: Holland becomes the dominant slave trading country
1700: Britain becomes the dominant slave trading country
1789: the English Privy Council concludes that almost 50% of the slaves exported from Africa die before reaching the Americas
1790: at the height of the British slave trade, one slave vessel leaves England for Africa every other day
1807: Britain outlaws slavery
1848: France abolishes slavery
1851: The population of the USA is 20,067,720 free persons and 2,077,034 slaves
1865: the Union defeats the Confederates and slavery is abolished in the USA
European slave trade by destination

Brazil: 4,000,000 35.4%
Spanish Empire: 2,500,000 22.1%
British West Indies: 2,000,000 17.7%
French West Indies: 1,600,00 14.1%
British North America: 500,000 4.4%
Dutch West Indies: 500,000 4.4%
Danish West Indies: 28,000 0.2%
Europe: 200,000 1.8%
Total 1500-1900: 11,328,000 100.0%
Source: "The Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1997
the redeemer

Toronto, Canada

#20 Mar 1, 2013
Arab Slave trade
Historians estimate that between 10 and 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert between 650 and 1900.[1][2][3][4] The term Arab when used in historical documents often represented a cultural term rather than a "racial" term, and many of the "Arab" slave traders such as Tippu Tip and others were indistinguishable from the "Africans" whom they enslaved and sold. Due to the nature of the Arab slave trade it is also impossible to be precise about actual numbers.[5][6][7] Additionally, approximately 11 -15 million African captives were taken to the Americas. Many died in the capture, on the ships, and in the dungeons in Africa. Likewise, some estimate that more than 2 million Africans died on the ships before reaching the destinations in the Arab world.[citation needed]
To a smaller degree, Arabs also enslaved Europeans. According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.[8][9] These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages from Italy, Spain, Portugal and also from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland.[10] The impact of these attacks was devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Pirate raids discouraged settlement along the coast until the 19th century.[11][12]
Periodic Arab raiding expeditions were sent from Islamic Iberia to ravage the Christian Iberian kingdoms, bringing back booty and slaves. In a raid against Lisbon in 1189, for example, the Almohad caliph Yaqub al-Mansur took 3,000 female and child captives, while his governor of Córdoba, in a subsequent attack upon Silves in 1191, took 3,000 Christian slaves.[13]
The Ottoman wars in Europe and Tatar raids brought large numbers of European Christian slaves into the Muslim world too.[14][15][16]
The 'Oriental' or 'Arab' slave trade is sometimes called the 'Islamic' slave trade, but a religious imperative was not the driver of the slavery, Patrick Manning, a professor of World History, states. However, if a non-Muslim population refuses to adopt Islam or pay the jizya protection/subjugation tax, that population is considered to be at war with the Muslim "ummah" (nation) and therefore it becomes legal under Islamic law to take slaves from that non-Muslim population. Usage of the terms "Islamic trade" or "Islamic world" has been disputed by some Muslims as it treats Africa as outside of Islam, or a negligible portion of the Islamic world.[17] Propagators of Islam in Africa often revealed a cautious attitude towards proselytizing because of its effect in reducing the potential reservoir of slaves.[18]
From a Western point of view, the subject merges with the Oriental slave trade, which followed two main routes in the Middle Ages:
• Overland routes across the Maghreb and Mashriq deserts (Trans-Saharan route)[19]
• Sea routes to the east of Africa through the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (Oriental route)[20][21]
The Arab slave trade originated before Islam and lasted more than a millennium.[22][23][24] Arab traders brought Africans across the Indian Ocean from present-day Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, South Sudan,[25] Eritrea, Ethiopia and elsewhere in East Africa to present-day Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Somalia, Turkey and other parts of the Middle East[26] and South Asia (mainly Pakistan and India). Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Muslim world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic (Morocco, Spain) to India and eastern China.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BW are evil, devious, vindictive and WM can hav... 4 min NSDAP 137
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Nobraina 1,264,748
News Al Sharpton blasts 'racist' Trump adviser for '... 12 min rebel111 124
So many white women are having sex with black men (Jan '14) 16 min trish_b 110
Sabbath Services 27 min Jon lew 1
Why are blacks more violent than other races? (Apr '11) 30 min NSDAP 39
Sandra Bland speaking on Black Lives Matter 33 min Righteous 223
News Donald Trump explains why there won't be anothe... 43 min Synque 38
Africans did not sell their own 55 min Righteous 175
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 2 hr audy17 31,177
More from around the web