Talk:History of slavery

An entry from History of slavery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 August, 2006.

Wikipedia

Dumping

The slave trade was very sad I hope the people involved were punished for their mistakes. Well they werent so ya

This information was once part of the "slavery" article. However, when the article was cleaned up and reduced in size, most of the material in this section was dumped without being distributed into other articles. There's some very good material here, including information I was looking for earlier today and not finding. I resurrected this article from version "22:23, 11 July 2006; 67.188.173.95", the last revision of this material before it was dumped. I have also changed several redirects from "slavery" to "history of slavery". Peter G Werner 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dumping material should be punishable by some heavy wiki-beating-on-the-head of parties responsible. Consider DYKing this article, it should achieve much more attention if this succeeds.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a lot more about slavery and islam, i recommend Islam's black slavery by Ronald Segal. There is a longer history and roughly the same numbers transported, ie. 12-14 million. It seems ridicolous not to mention this, maybe slightly political correct(?)

slave traders

Maybe this article need a headline about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.97.173.119 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Being new to editing I don´t quite know where to start, however I would like to point something out. Aristotle did NOT mean that some people "are slaves by nature" (that they should be slaves etc), what he talked about was being a slave to ones desires, or not. That some people "are slaves by nature" because they do not have enough self-restraint, and as such are slaves to their own whims. Uische (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Aristotle certainly DID mean that some people are "slaves by nature" and should be slaves.

It is also from natural causes that some beings command and others obey, that each may obtain their mutual safety; for a being who is endowed with a mind capable of reflection and forethought is by nature the superior and governor, whereas he whose excellence is merely corporeal is formed to be a slave; whence it follows that the different state of master [1252b] and slave is equally advantageous to both.

--Politics, Chapter II, tr. William Ellis, Toronto, London: Dent, 1912, from Project Gutenberg. 67.244.234.19 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)jackaroodave

Citations Please

Reference

• Section: Tudor, Stuart and Hanoverian England

The trade in serfs in England was made illegal in 1102,

This quote needs a citation. The text below it contains the sort of citation needed above. Malangthon 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Reference

• Section: Slavery in Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East

”The Arab world has traded in slaves like many other cultures of the region.”

I note that the phrasing here places the practice of slavery in a wider and therefore more common cultural context thus serving to distribute this phenomenon amongst other cultures and thereby mitigate the practice--i.e. others did it too. This approach is lacking in the sections above on western societies and thereby raises the distinct possibility of a POV Malangthon 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

history of the slave trade

Bold textapprentices in the year 1834 and the purpose of the stipendiary magisties.209.94.206.53 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

for an overview of the history of slavery this article is incomplete. Allthough we do not know wether slavery was common before hallstatt (we don't) at least hallstatt should be taken as a mark, from that point on slavery was an industrial resource. nevertheless i'll read it and see what it has to say for aztecs and other foreign cultures.80.57.67.243 (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass Exodus and Archeology

This article says that modern archeology throws doubts on Moses's Exodus, but there's no link to evidence or any source of that statement, so I'm removing it. Not that Moses's Exodus is undebatable-I believe wholeheartedely that it occurred-but that it is stated to be true in an ancient text, and this article has no reason to question that text's reliability. At least, not without evidence. Avatar Sokka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar Sokka (talk • contribs) 18:54, January 23, 2007

I have no idea whether the removed statement is true or not, but Avatar Sokka is correct: it should not be in the article without a citation to a reliable published source. -- Satori Son 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ancient Egypt section still needs POV work. It argues that Ancient Egyptian slavery was different from other forms of slavery, then lists the ways in which it is different- except all of these ways are seen in other types of slavery, particularly slavery in Egypt into the 20th century. There are many court cases of slaves suing their masters for unjust treatment, people volunteering for slavery to escape poverty, etc. For the time being I'll try to make it more neutral. Also I moved it to ancient mediterranean.--Zachbe (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

section name change: Slavery in North America -> Slavery in the United States

I think the name of this section should be changed as it deals almost completely with the history of slavery in the United States, not North America. Very little (or nothing) is mentioned about slavery in Mexico, Canada, the Carribean, or Central American countries. If someone adds a significant amount of material on those subjects, it should be changed back. Or maybe a different section should be made for slavery in each of those areas separately. Prometheusg 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pejorative Language

It seems a pity that people spoil this otherwise good article by the use of pejorative words such as "exploitation".

Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view.--Toddy1 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'Exploitation' is correct and consistent with the view of slavery articulated in most reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then quote the source as footnote to the use of this pejorative word.--Toddy1 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this objection silly, at best. Check the definition of slavery, for goodness sake. It's utterly uncontroversial. Cgingold 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be mainly interested in presenting a negative view of slavery. This is in breach of the neutral point of view policy.--Toddy1 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is not defined by triangulation among a random collection of Wikipedia editors. It is defined by what reliable sources say. Those sources overwhelmingly present slavery as a bad thing. No doubt there is a tiny minority who think (or pretend) that slavery is a morally neutral way to manage human resources rather than a crime against humanity, but presenting that point of view would give undue weight to a fringe opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Slavery is an institution which has existed for about 5000 years of human history. So there must have been a lot of people over the course of that time who thought it was OK. So why did they think so? Or is their point of view so dangerous to you that you cannot bear that it be shown?--Toddy1 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it you want to put in the article, and what are the citations? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed material in need of re-write

I removed this section because it does not match the style of the article, includes unencyclopedic POV material, it hasn't been integrated into the existing sections and needs rewriting to make its points. I also notice that the web page reference given (www2.h-net.msu.edu/~africa) doesn't contain any relevant content.

"The European society turned Africa into a slave trade. Many Africans were forced into slavery amd this process became a drastic blow to the African continent as a whole. The history of this slavery still haunts Africans today and was even integrated into United States culture at its development. Alkalimat, Abdul. The African American Experience in Cyberspace. London: Pluto P, 2004. 34. Nearly all of the European societies played a role in slavery and all of Africa felt the impact. Even, the Europeans who came to America played a role in the slave trade of African Americans. It is estimated that about 100 million Africans were forced into slavery. The lives and destruction of these people played a vital role in the development of the United States and slavery was not supressed until the integration of the Industrial Revolution. During this time, machines were starting to be used instead of people. H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online. Michigan State University. <www2.h-net.msu.edu/~africa>.

Many people have tried arguing that the slave tried was necessary in preventing Africans from the barbarism of their past and that in fact introduced them to a new way of life. Alkalimat, Abdul. The African American Experience in Cyberspace. London: Pluto P, 2004. 34. The only reason this viewpoint can be refuted is because of the fact that lineage of the African slaves can still tell their story. In our American society, it still remains evident that made a very dramatic impact on most countries in the Americas. Alkalimat, Abdul. The African American Experience in Cyberspace. London: Pluto P, 2004. 35. The slavery in Europe during the slave trade and the slavery that was brought into American are very different but both put Europeans and their descendants to shame. Slaveowners should be ashamed for holding people hostage in this way. Degrading a group of people by using them to your own advantage is dispicable and should be looked down upon most definitely.

By looking at different cultures around the Americas, it is obvious that the slave trade brought as many African ideas to the American culture as did European culture. This just proves that the lives of Africans are as precious as the lives of any other culture or race in the world."

Rexparry sydney 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Provisions: Sex Slavery

Hello all, though I think the piece is great, why wasn't the modern day sex slave trade included within this article? Though such an addition would be lenghty one, I think it should be part of the article. There is sex slavery in Eastern Europe and Southern Asian countries.

African OriginsAfrican Origins 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, also from Africa. Beware of the sex slave trade originated in Nigeria which ends up in Spain and Portugal (possibly other countries). Women are lent money to emigrate to Europe by mafia rings. They have to pay the money back, often by means of prostitution (it's a lot of money). If they do not pay, their relatives back in Nigeria are murdered. I saw a Spanish TV report about this issue. Joao Lisbon, Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.58.109 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No Moors ever sailed to England and Scandinavia taking whole villages, and more falsehoods

No Moors ever sailed to England and Scandinavia taking whole villages for slaves as the article says. I took that out. I left in the thing about mediteranian raids in the 8th century b/c I don't know about that and its possible I suppose? Perhaps Spain? But sources would be nice. However, the above claim of the Moors sailing to Scandinavia and England and taking whole villages of slaves is simply false, and quite ridiculous really. Thanks!

This whole article has major false, or unprovable and uncited claims. For intance, it said that 1.5 million "europeans" were taken as slaves by North Africans. Where is this giantly inflated number coming from, and how could anyone know exactly how many slaves were taken? If that is true (its not) it would mean roughly as many, or more europeans were taken as slaves by north africans, then africans were taken as slaves by North Americans. That is clearly not possible, or it would be so widely known and documented that there would be whole history departments devoted to it, etc. Another ridiculous allegation.

Actually Barbary Corsairs did raid southern England for slaves, strange it may seem today but see http://www.cindyvallar.com/barbarycorsairs.html a real problem 200 years ago.Jonathan Cardy 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That site itself, although not academic, is a good overview, and provides a useful reference list. BrainyBabe 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

North America Section

The North America section contradicts itself a little. At first it says that slavery isn't a legally defined status until 1661, then it says the 1640s. Then the whole 17th century is briefly resummarized again. It seems like this should all be integrated better, maybe with more quotes from laws that illustrate the incremental or drastic changes in status that occurred?

John Casor and Anthony Johnson

Any description of the history of Slavery in North America, particularly in the United States, should mention John Casor & Anthony Johnson (American Colonial). I would also agree with the above unsigned comments. This portion of the article should be cleaned up. Chronology would probably make much better sense.Asacan 14:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in Arabia, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East

delted weasle words and direct POV which is trying to white wash the transatlantic slave trade by demonizing Arabs and redirecting focus. Just state the facts, we dont need any POV comparisions, site multi sources. I will tag this section because it is not neutral. The fact that it is called Arab slave trade over and over again is a bias. when even indians and chinese were involved. there is also virtually no ref for the BIG statements.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Balance

see [Braudel, Colonialism and the Rise of the West] I dont know considering the nature of this man you can open up an article on African Slavery and start with a agent like Braudel, for heaven sake, why not start a page on Jewish Holocaust and start with the views of Henrich Himmler? sorry dont we have African who are better at their own history to start with? --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

senegambia

I have read the article from britanica and have some issues. First of all the existence and definition of the nature of slavery in Africa is controversial and is highly disputed. Many argue that slavery in Africa cannot be compared to the that in the Americas, because it was short lived and "slaves" would eventually intermarry into the occupying population. The paper gives the impression that these are hard numbers, when however the population of the regions in mentioned are not even accurately known. There were no censuses in Africa in the 17th and 18th century. Muntuwandi 13:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bring in the other sources and we can include the contrary opinion. If it gets too long or detailed, it should be spun off and summarized here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture text

"Trafficked children as young as 2 years old are forced to work up to 18 hours a day as camel jockeys in the Middle East"

The implication of this exxagerated text is that 2-3 year olds are working as camel jockeys. Anyone that has ever to the middle east or ridden a camel knows that this just isn't physically possible.

Source it or reword it. Zarkow 124.120.74.40 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

no more slaves

just no more stop it now ok good bye ty :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.200.77 (talk) 02:00, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Slavery template box

The current location of the {{slavery}} template obscures the contents box when displayed. It could alternatively be relocated to the start of the next section, or it could be added to the "See also" as it is essentially a list of related pages and topics.

I have relocated it to the "See also" section, but this is a reasonably arbitrary decision and I would welcome discussion regarding any alternative placings for it. Euryalus 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus re the following sentences

I recently removed two sentences from the article for the reasons outlined below. I am interested in other's views regarding their inclusion or otherwise:

• Ironically, the creation and maintenance of Nazi death squads (Einsatzgruppen) and extermination camps has sensationally and lastingly diverted much serious attention away from the Nazi 'league position' as regards the scale and conditions of slavery that were endemic to their cultural dispensation.

The meaning of the above seemed unclear. "League positions" are not defined, nor is it clear what "endemic to their cultural dispensation" means. Clearer wording and an explanation of relevance to this topic would be appreciated.

• To serious scholars, it is remarkable that the Gulag Archipelago has so little resonance within the wider history of slavery. It may well that in many nations a sentimental regard for the 'ideals' of communism will always repress true dialogue on this issue.

This is unsourced ("serious scholars" is not sufficient) and would appear to be a general comment on public or political attitudes rather than a history of slavery. The existence of Gulags and the horrific death toll are adequately covered in the article, suggesting that even if the above sentence is correct elsewhere it is not correct here.

As always, comments and opposing views welcomed. Euryalus 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit

I changed the title "Return of slavery to British law" to "Slavery in American Colonial Law". The statutes were enacted by the American colonial legislatures not by the British legislature. Further, they had no influence on the law in Britain (For example, "How did American Slavery Begin," Edward Countryman, et al, Bedford St. Martins, 1999). Slavery was never legal in Britain, as finally ruled in the Mansfield decision (aka the Somersett Case).

I also changed: "In 1772, a legal case concerning James Somersett made it illegal to remove a slave from England against his will" to "In 1772, the Somersett Case (R. v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett) of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772 ruled that slavery was unlawful in England (although not elsewhere in the British Empire)" The latter quote was taken directly from the Wikipedia article on the Somersett case. The former interpretation is much too narrow and very much a minority view: the court's decision clearly and finally settled the issue of whether or not slavery was legal in England.

--Kjb (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great Cylinder

The Wikipedia page on the Cyrus the Great Cylinder contains a link to a translation of the cylinder which has every appearance of being accurate. The translation currently included in the History of Slavery page does not agree with that translation and portrays Cyrus as a more progressive ruler than he apparently was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.119.58 (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section on Persia as the translation of the Cyrus the Great Cylinder on which it is based is a fraud. The language quoted was made up by propagandists for the Shah of Iran.Bill (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2008

(UTC)

That's just a fringe theory, not an absolute fact.--CreazySuit (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

According to edits made by Larno Man Cyrus the Great, the founder of Persian Empire was the first ruler to temporarily prohibit the systematic enslavement of conquered non-combatant population.[1][2] According to Larno Man this information can be found on pp. 44-45 of Kaveh Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War (2007). In truth, however, this source does not even mention the issue of slavery on these pages. I issued a warning to Larno Man and removed the section. -- Ankimai (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, the source states that Cyrus set free many slaves. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus freed up to 40,000 Jews and allowed deported people to return home. I add more references for clarification. They suggest that Cyrus abolished or at least restricted slavery--Larno Man (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the part (added by someone else) stating that Cyrus was the first ruler who abolished slavery. It might be true but not in my references. I hope that this satisfy Ankimai concerns--Larno Man (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this section, which is based on the famous fake translation of the Cyrus cylinder. The first source contains near-verbatim quotes from the fake translation. The third quotes the correct text that Cyrus removed a corvée on the people of Babylon but says it is "not clear to what extent Cyrus limited slavery". Only the freeing of the Jews (which is not mentioned on the cylinder) is plausible here, but a good source is needed. Regarding the fake translation see: [3] [4] [5] . For the correct translation see the first of those links or this link. Astarabadi (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of sources

Why is the referencing of this article so dominated by a motley collection of weblinks and works unrelated to slavery like that of Beevor and Rummel? There are plenty of very authorative books written on the history of slavery. For example, the amount of citations in the section on Africa could probably be cut in half if the works of historians like Paul Lovejoy and John K. Thornton were used instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Problematic removal of Norway and entire section about Portugal and GB

I have changed the name of one of the Scandinavian kingdoms back to the historically correct name used in all the sources cited for this section: Denmark-Norway. The removal of Norway in order to prevent "blame" from being cast on the country (as per this edit) is not very constructive. Please note that Norwegians profited from the trade and were directly involved, although the country was administratively dominated by Denmark during this period. As a personal observation, I'd like to add: The strength and beauty of Norway's approach as an independent country is the courage usually exhibited in taking responsibility and encouraging other countries to do so. As opposed to the criticism against other country's attempts to claim the world stage as "the conscience of the world", there is usually never anything to say against government representatives from Norway for trying to take on that role, because the country can seldom be blamed for trying to hide uncomfortable facts or "not cleaning their own house first" when they encourage other nations to respect human rights. The reason is that, even when their involvement is peripheral, they step up to the plate and expose parts of history that is unflattering, because, as the Norwegian UNESCO Commission writes, "it is only through remembering history that we can avoid repeating it." It's a bit discouraging to note that this effort appears to be side-stepped here. Please note that the Norway, as one of few countries with this kind of small-scale involvement in the slave trade and in the enslavement of Africans, has made it a point to be perfectly honest about their involvement. UNESCO Norway has a web page that shows for example aslave captain's house in Norway. The site where the Danish-Norwegian slave ship Fredensborg sank is a national heritage site. In addition, Norway has made it a point to make sure the Fredensborg exhibition is made available to the people of the Caribbean, as well as to the people of Ghana. SJUPadin (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition: I note that the sub-sections about Portugal and about Great Britain and Ireland have now been totally stripped of text. Please be informed that I intend to restore these sections, and kindly discuss before performing such wholesale deletions of text. This article is not a WP:LIST and needs at least summary sections under each sub-head. SJUPadin (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Slavery / Medieval Europe

The following section is false information about Hungary:

. . . for more than half a century Magyar bands raided Germany, Great Moravia, Italy, the Byzantine Empire, and lands as far away as Spain. The Magyars looted towns and took captives for labor, ransom, or sale on the slave market.[22]

22. The Magyars of Hungary.

The reason the Magyars raided Germany and other European countries in the 10th century was not for booty or slavery but, in all the Magyar campaigns, the Magyars were invited by the German princes and close relatives to help them prevent Otto I from centralizing his power, thereby providing a balance of power. Another reason was to reclaim their treasures that Charlemagne had taken from the Avars (relatives of the Magyars) The Magyars never took slaves. There were probably prisoners of war but there was no slave-trade. Source: www.magtudin.org. Botos, Laszlo: The Homeland Reclaimed, Chapter II. The Campaigns of the Magyars Tiszataj (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Slavery and its purported greco-phoenician origins

"Romans inherited the institution of slavery from the Greeks and the Phoenician". Appart from dubious this is a rather simplistic statement and I tend to take it with a pinch of salt. The emergence of slavery in ancient cultures involved a multitude of economic, social, historical etc. factors. This explains its independent development in many different and unrelated parts of the world. It can hardly be conceived as something taught from one people to another in a simple linear fashion. Could we please have the exact excerpt from the Encyclopedia Americana and some more detailed sources? As it now stands it sounds a bit pedantic. I find it hard to believe that Romans got the idea of slavery from Greeks and Phoenicians. Plebeians, for instance could occasionally be enslaved for debt by their patrician fellow citizens, as it happened during the 494 BC Secessio plebis. At the time, Greek-Roman contacts were actually minimal and I find it difficult to imagine how this enslavement crisis could have been a Greek or Phoenician idea--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

1- This is the quote from Americana:

Expansion of Slavery by the Romans. The Romans inherited the institution of slavery from the Greeks and the Phoenicians and expanded it with the territorial ...

However, I agree that it is a little simplistic and can be improved. So, I am not bothered if you removed it.

2- It is said on the article that Antiphon, Alkidamas, Onesikritos, Philemon, Euripides and the Cynics completely opposed slavery. I think it is very simplistic statement. I doubt that these authors (at least not all) supported abolishment of slavery. 3rdAlcove used a reference from 1936. Could you please have the ecaxt excert of Robert Schlaifer?

"Robert Schlaifer, "Greek Theories of Slavery from Homer to Aristotle", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 47, (1936), pp. 199-201--Larno Man (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

3- According to provided references, natural slavery was more accepted theory among Greeks and philosophers. Authors who support slavery outnumbered the opposition of slavery. So, this is undue weight to give same weight to these two views. No need to mention that Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are more well known than the second group.--Larno Man (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Giorgos, slavery existed on small scale in Roman society from early on, but it was under the Greek influence that it became an important economic factor.

Early Roman society was very rural, you can say the Latins were a nation of patriarchal farmers. There wasn't much place for slaves in this traditional society.

When they began to develop enough for the city of Rome to gain importance, the urban Romans looked at the more advanced civilizations as models for their society and these were the Greeks and the Etruscans. They borrowed many facets of their civilization including the institution of slavery (as in laws and customs).

The idea of slavery existed before, but the way it was implemented is borrowed, together with many other bits from the Greeks. That's why the Greeks and Roman slavery are usually lumped together in historical research because their great similarity.

For example, a peculiarity found in both Greek and Roman slavery was the difference between "free" and "freed" people, a freed slave having fewer political rights than a free person. bogdan (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

spanish and portuguese section

The section says ' like europeans were immune for african diseases" this is misleading, since smallpox and other diseases have been purposedly used to eliminate the native americans, rather a different thing from getting a malaria anyone without sicklecell anemia would. 80.57.67.243 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam & slavery redirect

Is it necessary to have "For Muslim views on slavery, see Islam and slavery" before the article?

Usually that type of redirect is used when there would be obvious confusion. I don't think that people would go to "History of slavery" when looking for "Islam and slavery." Keeping that there implies that slavery is predominantly applicable to Islam. This article could be linked in the See Also section, but I think that it's irrelevant and biased to have it where it is. I'd like to remove it, unless anyone has any objections? AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about it a little more, I'm going to remove the redirect. There is a link right at the top to Islam and slavery, presented in a less prejudiced fashion. I think the harm of leaving it there and providing people with biased information is greater than the risk of removing something worthwhile. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to discuss. AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much credit to religion

This article states that Scandinavia abolished slavery because Catholicism was (widely) introduced. Although Christianity did enter Scandinavia at the time that slavery was abolished, it is given too much credit. The slaves was given some allowance and by law, they could buy themselves out of slavery after 3-4 generations. Since the viking quests ended at around 900-1000ad, it is only natural that there were no slaves in Scandinavia in 1100. These laws however did not have anything to do with religion, it was the will of the pseudo-democracy (which was destroyed and replaced with a real monarchy at about the time that Christianity settled in).

80.212.217.11 (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in China Section

The section in China needs to be fix badly, especially the first part where it quotes someone's personally opinion. While the source it quotes from is real and possibly a qualified researcher, its really misleading. The price of a slave isnt "100 dollars" as it claimed. In the time of Confucious, a slave cost about 1/4 to 1/5 the price of a horse. I strongly recommend deleting the quotes, since it constitute a person's opinion which does not reflect the general truth.

Even the section about boo-i needs to be clarified. Manchu is a minority race in China which constitute about 1% of Chinese population. Their tribal customs are not representative of the other 99%.

65.95.113.8 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Many forms & levels of slavery

Maybe we should clarify there are many forms & levels of slavery. The dictionary meaning of Slavery is "someone who is controlled by someone or something." Money controls & enslaves us: we were forced into needing money (explained in "When Corporations Rule the World") & if someone can't get money they starve, & now automation (as was predicted) will eliminate all the work so we have to end wage slavery which is slavery, but too few knew the wage is slavery. People can enslave themselves in many ways (making cakes from scratch--level 3?) vs. buying a cake from a store--level 1?). Stars4change (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

William the Bastard

I dispute that William abolished slavery in 1066 as I understand it to have been abolished in 1101 under Henry I due to the campaign by Bishop Wulfstan, upon which the kind-hearted citizens of Bristol celebrated by poking the slavers eyes out. (Nice) The ending of Viking raids coincides with the widespread abolition of slavery because slave-trading was the object of those raids. Unless the reference can be substantiated soon I wioll edit the article. --Streona (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Viking as slavers

I deleted the viking section since the circumstances of the viking slavery are the same for all peoples and therfore is to general and to inclusive- most all groups of people in the world have acted like viking slavers at one time or another. Vikings would enslave some of their conquered people just as most all the other groups of the world would enslave their conquered peoples. Why include only viking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

forced labor prisoners are not slaves

I deleted the nazi inclusion since forced labor is not slavery. The prisoners were not considered property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the edit-warring taking place, but this is a valid point. However, I do not understand your objection to the Viking section - it specifically mentions that "the Scandinavian representatives for the church held that a Christian could not morally own another Christian". Furthermore, the main article thrall indicates slaves were being bought and sold, and also uses the term "slave". So I have restored the Viking section.

As for the concentration camps... truly a horrific example, yes. But by Wikipedia's definition, probably not slavery. (Interestingly, the dictionary definition of slavery WOULD include concentration camps.) I noticed the forced labor articles are not nearly as well developed as the slavery articles, which is a bit disappointing but hopefully can be improved with time. Since the concentration camps are considered forced labor, I would suggest that this (excellent) summary be moved to a relevant article.

I also added a link to penal labor at the front. I would also encourage that the introduction paragraph be edited to clarify that slavery also does not include other forms of unfree labor. Perhaps something like "It does not include forced labor by prisoners, labor camps, or other forms of unfree labor." In typical conversation, I *would* use the word slavery to describe the concentration camps, so for people like me, this definition of slavery needs to be clear about exactly what is not being covered here, so we know what to look for. Just my two cents. -- Joren (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Joren makes some good points. The term "slavery" has very often been used to describe corecion that people dislike (taxes, for example, or political rule by others or prostitution). But there is a very well extablished expert literature on slavery-as-property which this article covers.Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Muddying the waters further, it seems that while the main article Slavery quotes the same definition used here, later on in the actual article a much broader definition seems to be employed (but without stating the actual definition). See Slavery#Current situation - it would be nice to have the same standard across all the articles (whatever that standard ends up being) so that they don't see forms of slavery such as debt bondage, forced labor, etc. included in the main article but not here. Any editors out there willing to tackle this? -- Joren (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia were not supposed to use their own minds in this manner, e.g. making their own analysis of law texts or definitions. My feeling is that the Jews and others worked to death in concentration camps were indeed seen as slaves, as property to be hired out to the highest bidder, while others such as OST-Arbeiter, some of which even had vacation days, were not. But obviously we have a problem with taxonomy/ontology here. What terms should we use. Bot the OST-Arbeiter and the Forced labor in Germany during World War II articles make use of the term slave labor, although I do not know how supported it is by sources. NPOV requests that if you in articles such as those use strong words such as slave, it should be supported by a reliable source. Conversely, if the sources actually use the word slave labor, then we should in fact include the topics such as OST arbeiter also in this article. It is the only solution that will work in the long run. If the sources say they were slaves, then we have to mention it here, regardless of possible lack of competency/(or rigid adherence to definitions) among the sources.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example of the mess is this articles section on Japan during WWII. Forced labor of Allied prisoners is mentioned there, this should then most certainly have to be deleted from this article, as should perhaps also Comfort women. To complicate it further, look at the oscilating title of the article on the German equivalent: German soldier's brothels in World War II --- Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II.

To sum up, stick to the rules, if sources say it was slavery, then it is included in wiki as slavery regardless of whether you have an academic degree and know the sources to be intellectually deficient. Conversely, make sure people don't stick name tags on things without sources to back it up with.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Slave" is not a precise term, as all specialized studies of it agree. "Chattel slavery" can be a useful distinction, though that is not wholly precise either. Different sources use different terms for the same thing, or the same term for different things, or explain why they are using a particular term for convenience, despite it not exactly fitting. "Slave labour" is used much more often in 20th century history than "slave", and there is a reason for that. In a case like this, you can't unfortunately just follow the sources without risking being misleading. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stor stark7: "If the sources say they were slaves, then we have to mention it here". Therefore, the laborers of Nazi camps do belong here. There is no such thing as wikipedia's definition ("But by Wikipedia's definition, probably not slavery"). This is not a reliable source. Biophys (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that this article is about the HISTORY of slavery, and the sources in question must be reliable sources on the history of slavery. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sure, but History ends today. Well, I did not edit this article before, and just looked at the discussion.Biophys (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

UK

Unless we agree to include also those who were not "property" per se', but still forced laborers, we'll probably have to scrap a lot of the article, begining with the Gulag section if we wish to be consistent.

I've added the following text to the UK section since although technically they were not property (although the UK government hired them out for good money, none of which they got to see, and without any say in the matter). However property or not, they generated a lot of talk of slavery, and were by enough people seen as slaves for me to warrant that they merit inclusion here. The text I added is below. If you delete it, please make sure you delete most of the Soviet Union Gulag section also, for consistency's sake.

In 1946 the UK had more than 400,000 German prisoners, many had been transferred from POW camps in the U.S. and Canada. Many of these were used for over 3 years after the war used as forced labor, as a form of "reparations". "The POWs referred to themselves as 'slave labour', with some justice." Their emotional state was worsened "from the anxiety and hope of the first half of 1946 to the depression and nihilism of 1948." A public debate ensued in the UK, where words such as "forced labor", "slaves", "slave labour" were increasingly used in the media and in the House of Commons. In 1947 the Ministry of agriculture argued against rapid repatriation of working German prisoners, since by then they made up 25 percent of the land workforce, and they wanted to use them also in 1948.

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it probably should go (someone has just removed it), but do we have an article at all on WW2 POWs in Britain? A quick look suggests not. It should find a home somewhere anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Brahmins

I was recently looking through the Geography by Strabo, and I found some material about ancient India that can confirm Arrian's quote:

Megasthenes divides the philosophers again into two kinds, the Brachmanes and the Garmanes... As they have no slaves, they require more the services, which are at hand, of their children.

This is from Book 15, Chapter 1, Section 59. The interesting thing about this passage is that it states that during Megasthenes's time, Brahmins didn't own slaves, contrary to the popular stereotype. Hokie Tech (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Forced labor content - where can it be moved?

It seems we arrived at a consensus that systems in which the slave is not legally considered "property" should not be included here. Unfortunately, this has had the effect of excellent overviews being deleted from the history article, which seems like a waste. I have started to rescue some of the deleted content, specifically that relating to penal labor, by relocating it to the penal labor article and giving it a section heading for each country. Penal labor should include prisoners of war, political prisoners, religious prisoners, etc.

I imagine there may be other categories of unfree labor that do not have worldwide overview articles to which we may move other deleted content. If you are aware of any other such categories, please bring it up here and let's figure out how we can rescue the (otherwise excellent) overviews that have had to be deleted to keep the article on-topic.

SLAVERY IN SEATTLE!: It came to MY attention, a few years ago, that slave trade is still going on in parts of Seattle, under our very noses! people in some of my classes thought slavery died away after the Civil War, or after the Civil Rights era with Martin. L. King- but they were very, very wrong! i believe the slave trade AND sex slavery should be stopped!!!! I would like every measure be taken to stop this from continuing...most sex slaves, I'm sure, are women- and being a woman myself, i find it HIGHLY degrading that this is STILL TO THIS DAY, GOING ON!!!! PLEASE STOP SLAVERY!

-- Joren (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indendured servitude (that is, labor contracts) is voluntary and temporary, and should not be included. Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjensen! So where should examples of indentured servitude be moved to? Is Indentured servant an ok destination, or is there a better one you might know of? (see below)

-- Joren (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested move guidelines

(please edit!)

• prison labor / P.O.W. labor / labor camps / penal colonies content -> Penal labor
• indentured servitude -> Indentured servant?

Deleted content that could be rescued

• [6] - Gulag; forced labor in the Soviet Union
  •  Done Moved to Penal labor. -- Joren (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• [7] - British voluntary indentured servants
• [8] - Forced labor of German POWs in Allied states during/after WWII
• [9] - Nazi Germany and its occupied territories
• [10] - More WWII Allied forced labor

Removed the netherlands

I removed the netherlands since there is no evidence that ethnic germanic people in the netherlands were involved in the slave trade. Most of what are considered dutch people may be people who were from spain but moved to the netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.99.10 (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not true--We can even name some slaves held by the Dutch, such as Sojourner Truth. Rjensen (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A few dutch people who owned black african slaves does not merit placement in an article that has enslavers like the british and spainish. Due to the fact that there wer very few dutch people who owned slaves and most all of the "dutch" slave owners were actually from spain or portugal I will remove the netherlands from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.20.68 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

" when Portuguese interests in Africa moved away from the fabled deposits of gold to a much more readily available commodity; slaves. " seems to be copied from About.com - just one sentence but it a. flows terribly b. appears to be a copyvio. Can someone take care of it? Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

USSR in Modern Europe Section

The current article mentions the use of slavery by the National Socialists in Germany, but so far there is no mention of the U.S.S.R. Do the best sources deny that the Soviets used slave labor on a large scale or has it simply not been added to the article yet? Jayson Virissimo (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see that the information about the USSR has been moved to penal labor. Jayson Virissimo (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Trafficking and the scope of this article

In the lede, the current scope is systems "in which one human being is legally the property of another". It occurred to me this creates problems when it comes to systems that do not have legal sanction but nonetheless exist. For example, trafficking, which covers "the illegal trade in human beings for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation or forced labor". I'm not convinced that it shouldn't be covered here, because as far as I can tell, they are bought, sold, treated like property in every way, just without legal backing, so it seems like an artificial distinction to make (if it is being made). I'm kind of leaning towards thinking the term "legally" should be changed to something like... systems "in which one human being is considered and treated as the property of another". Are there other factors I am not aware of? Is (illegal) trafficking covered here or not? -- Joren (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

let's keep the article focused on legal systems, and keep illegal traffic separate. It's not true that in illegal systems "they are bought, sold, treated like property in every way"--no RS claims that. Rjensen (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, people do buy them, yes? People do sell them, yes? What is the practical difference?

-- Joren (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of differences: illegal sales can't be enforced by law. You can't sue (so you shoot the other dealer), you can't borrow using slaves as security, you can't use legal remedies if they run away (so you terrorize the workers). At any time you can be exposed and lose your stolen property, so you have o keep a very low profile. You cannot have social prestige or fame and your children cannot get honorable jobs.Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How does any of that make it not slavery? The person is still being held against their will and forced to work, and can be bought and sold. It seems a bit like saying false imprisonment isn't imprisonment, or an illegal drug trade isn't a drug trade, etc...

-- Joren (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jorgen. This is exactly the reason why such things are called "slavery" in modern sources. Note that forced laborers could be occasionally sold by Nazi (see Schindler's List, for example) or bartered by their opponents.Biophys (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

the debate here has to be about what the reliable sources say about the history of slavery, not personal opinions about what captivity is like. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The segments of text you just deleted [11] include a number of sources that qualify as WP:RS and call involuntary laborers "slaves". Something that had happened a year ago is already a history. There is no consensus to remove this information.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

a) It did not qualify as reliable SECONDARY scholarship on HISTORY; b) it dealt with contemporary events, which is covered by the different article on slavery, c) so no need here until historians put it in historical perspective. Rjensen (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The initial comment posted by Joren was not about "modern" versus "historic", but about human trafficking as a form of slavery. He objects the position that slavery is no longer considered a slavery if it is illegal. Yes, it is considered a form of slavery in a variety of sources you deleted (hence it should be included here even if relatively recent). This is all I wanted to say.Biophys (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes in two columns

I've put the footnotes into two columns, as this tends to make long lists of notes more readable. If anyone objects strenuously that it is not an improvement, I won't oppose a reversion. -- spin^control 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians were sold into slavery

Quote:

• Ukraine was controlled by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. During this period, it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians were sold into slavery to the Turks.

It is based on a citation 87. (Kirill Pankratov (May 20, 2005). "Baltic Countries Always Somebody’s Bitch". The Exile. http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=7754&IBLOCK_ID=35. Retrieved 19 September 2010.). Is this article a reliable source of information? It is very much non-scientific, there is more empty rhetoric than actual data. I do not know of any reliable evidence that "hundreds of thousands Ukrainians were sold to the Turks". Where do these estimations come from and how were they made? I think this excerpt and citation note should be removed.

--83.10.90.40 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)