Talk:Slavery

Big error in the Rubinstein citation (#45)

The article says approx 6 million slaves were killed by other blacks in tribal war, referencing the Rubinstein book, but this statement is misplaced. According to the book, that number refers to blacks killed over the entirety of slavery in Africa, NOT among those brought to the America's. Post arrival slave warfare was limited to escapees, which the Rubinstein book alludes was never more than 5% of all surviving slave arrivals in the entire America's. Meaning the actual number of slaves killed from tribal warfare in America (escapees and maroons) would have to be some number less than 300,000, which is the total number of escapees post-arrival. Nowhere near 6 million, which would be a 50% rate of all slaves to arrive.

ThujaTsuga

False Information under heading History- Islamic World

This statement is under the titles 'History' and 'islamic world'

"The great 14th-century scholar Ibn Khaldun, wrote: "the Black nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Blacks) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals".

Having researched I was unable to find any evidence stating that Ibn Khaldun supported slavery or proof of this quote. It appears fabricated. I feel this should be deleted as there seems to be no truth in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.177.18 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

bias

The line "From about the nineteenth century "slavery" has been very closely associated with enslavement of non-white, usually black, people by white people." has no source listed. The article fails to explain that the word "slave" comes from the word Slav because so many Slavs (people of Eastern Europe) were taken into slavery, much like calling a tissue a "Kleenex" even though not all tissues are that brand. The accepted lable for people in bondage did not derive from the words Nubian, African or Negro. It omits the historical sale of caucasian Slavs by European Jews to MiddleEastern Muslims. It also fails to explain the current widespread enslavement in Africa of Muslim Negroids by Muslim Negroids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.67.192 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Types of Slavery section

Currently "Human Trafficking" is listed as a type of slavery. That's like saying drug trafficking is a type of drug abuse. It makes no sense. Human trafficking is a term used to describe the movement of slaves from one location to another; important only because it is the best chance for law enforcement to catch the traffickers and free the slaves. The mere fact that the slaves are being "trafficked" and "traded" means they are personal property or chattels. I move that the "Human Trafficking" subsection be added to the end of the "Chattel slavery" subsection. Objections? Johnathlon (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) The term Anatu abdi "A Basic Grammer of Ugaritic Language" meaning war goddess slave servant, from lands of Levant would indicate the Armies of certain countries were awarded the status of slave servant of that country. Abdi is also Arab for slave. Clearly the people of the Anatu abdi payed room and board in tales of the apartment "Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Certainly after waves of Hitites, Egyptians, Jews,Greeks,Romans and Arabs Abdi was modernized to servant without pay or property as in Arabic.It is also obvious that the Anatu Abdi being of orgin of Crete lost his pay to the Greeks long before the Jew and well before Rome was ever born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloo64 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Muddled account of abolitionism

There were few Dutch Quakers in Pensylvania and most of abolitionist pressure was in Britain in Quaker and dissenting circles. Needs a complete we-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.20.222 (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Extremely bias

This article is very bias, it rarely says any thing about the European slavery most of the pictures focus on Arab slavery. It is without doubt that the European were the worst offenders hence this is not evident on this site. This will led to narrow minded people to believe one sided information like this and therefore would believe as fact while its far from fact. maxman 21:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The section on medieval Europe speaks of slavery of "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" as "race-slavery". The description "race-" is obviously wrong, "religious" might be acceptable, but there is no need for any qualification. 86.45.147.197 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for pointing this out. The inline citation was to a source that said nothing of the sort; I've re-written the sentence with reference to a source which quotes the cited papal bull. It looks to me like the whole article needs some tlc, IMHO. Nortonius (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More slaves today?

The section on present day slavery begins with "There are more slaves today than at any point in history". The source given is a Time magazine article which does not mention how it arrived at this figure. This comparison does not seem to agree with other Wikipedia articles on slavery. There are between 12 and 27 million slaves currently. In the mid 19th century, there were 4 million slaves in the US, 8-9 million in India, between 30-50% of the population of at least a dozen African nations, half the population of Korea. Now, those 4 million in the US were descended from less than half a million of the 12 million slaves transported in the Atlantic trade. I can't find numbers for the rest of the Americas, but we're talking about another 11.5 million and their descendants in Brazil, Haiti and Cuba. We're already over the high figure for modern slavery and we haven't even touched the middle east, the 23 million privately held serfs in Russia who would fit the modern definition of slavery, sex slaves in brothels, in short we get a larger number than the modern estimates as soon as we begin to scratch the surface of the mid 19th century.

Without a more robust citation for the claim that there are more slaves today than at any point in history, it should be removed.--98.217.193.42 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

South Africa

Weren't Indian people enslaved in South Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.197.229 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)