Jump to content

Talk:Slavery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:6c51:7001:200:44ea:4bb0:2770:a417 (talk) at 22:09, 4 September 2019 (Denial of minimum wage, Slavery Defined in law, and Joint Venture Project of CA TITLE 9 CCR Ca Code Regulations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


African slave trade images

@Musicfan122:, Regarding this edit it seems that the consensus is against you - diff. I agree with @Balolay: that this article is maybe too Euro-American-centric. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image is informative and provides the reader with an important perspective on the subject of slavery in non-western cultures. Also, the Arab slave trade existed for much longer period of time than the Atlantic slave trade, but the later seems to be the main focus of the article. Confining the former to a single section is not good. I don't see any reason why @Musicfan122: keeps opposing this addition. Regards. Balolay (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is far from "Euro-American-centric", you seeing it as that is WP:POV. As said in the edit summery, an image of a 19th century Arab slave trading caravan is already provided in a section discussing the matter. Musicfan122 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Musicfan122 as I have already explained, the image present in the Arab section this different from the picture I have added in the lead.
Secondly, can you please elaborate, why you are removing the image about Christian slaves that has been in the article for 7 years without consensus? Regards Balolay (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I explained to you why it's not different, but you're not listening. It's the same way with Algiers image. You're one revert away from a 3RR, I'd be careful if I were you. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Musicfan122 no you haven't explained anything. There is no wiki rule that says that 2 images related to a single topic can't be in the same article. You need to respect the opinions of other wiki editors.Balolay (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to discuss this extensively right now but the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc and even the article cover a lot about these topics but we only choose the Arab slavery to represent in the lead? I think this is a POV pushing. SharabSalam (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ SharabSalam can you provide credible sources proving your claims. This article is about slavery in general. This practice was prevalent around the world not just the west & still remains prevalent in some Arab nations.[1]

Also historians have suggested as many as 17 million slaves were involved in the Arab slave trade.[2] Balolay (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been 24 hours and you are already threatening to start an edit war. go on.. but be ready for a proposal topic ban if you did that because you are obviously pushing POV and putting disruptive edits into articles. Anyway the same sources that you are mentioning talks about that there are 18-24 million slave trades that were by Europeans and at the middle it says not only Europeans who did slavery trade but also Muslims and yet you are using cheery picking fallacy. Also the lead image should be neutral and most of the time it is preferred that no lead image in the article is better. Again your behaviour is going to get you banned so I advise you to stop this behaviour that only shows how you are trying to push your POV. --SharabSalam (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said "the same sources that you are mentioning talks about that there are 18-24 million slave trades that were by Europeans and at the middle it says not only Europeans who did slavery trade but also Muslims and yet you are using cheery picking fallacy."

Actually the BBC source I mentioned clearly states that Muslim slave traders were responsible for the enslavement of 17 million people. So I am not the one who is cherry picking. This also goes against your initial premise that Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery.

You said "Also the lead image should be neutral and most of the time it is preferred that no lead image in the article is better."

Can you please explain what is your definition of a neutral image? Also I haven't heard of a wiki rule which says that not having an image in the lead is preferred. Infact most wiki articles have multiple images in the lead. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balolay: Well first of all I want to play a little bit fallacy detective game here you said "This also goes against your initial premise that Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery." I never said that in the talk page or in the article and thats not the argument I am having with you here although the The transatlantic slave trade was the biggest deportation in history[1] and The Europeans often gave goods in advance to their African trade partners. African trade partners are usually muslims because of the spread of Islam. The growing demand for slaves from ((Europe)) meant that the ((African suppliers)) increased their activities[2] but as I said thats not my argument thats not even what I said in the edit summary that you might be referring to.
I am surprised that you are asking for the rule in wikipedia and I have gave it to you in this talk page but I guess you didnt pay attention. Anyway here I qoute from MOS:LEADIMAGE "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery and this is not the only article you are doing this to!
while we are here trying to disscuss this issue you are editting and adding images into other articles leads that are related to the dispute [3]
[4] and more in your contrubtions anyone can see that and threatening to restore your POV in this article without seeking consensus. Also without mentioning that you dont care for the neutrality of wikipedia [5]. This behavour isnt healthy for the community of wikipedia and should be taken into consideration before asking us to disscuss here.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SharabSalam "I never said that in the talk page or in the article and thats not the argument I am having with you here"
Actually you did say it [6] and your edit was immediately reverted by an admin.
Secondly, the BBC source I gave clearly states that 17 million people were enslaved by Muslim traders in different parts of the world. This doesn't take into account whether Arab traders acted as intermediatries in transatlantic slave trade. So I don't know what are you talking about.
Regarding this [7], can you provide me even a single valid justification for removing such an important image besides it being a burden on the lead. There is no denying that photography helped a lot in ending slavery. Even if it was indeed a burden (which it isn't), why didn't you remove any other image besides this one, shows your bias in terms of Arab/Islamic perspective... doesn't it?
I didn't say this in the talk page nor in the article and I didn't say "Europeans were mainly responsible for slavery." I said that Slavery is associated with the Western culture more than in the Arab one and it does exist in the West more than in the Arab world until now but in its modern version and that's not my argument.
You completely dismissed and ignored what I argue about; that images in the lead should be neutral and represent the whole article most of the article isn't even about Arab slavery yet you are putting images randomly in the leads. And yes I removed images that aren't neutral nor related to the article that you put in the leads while we are discussing this issue here. You just added that image just 1 day ago and you are asking me to delete other images other than yours the one that have been there for decades --SharabSalam (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SharabSalam" I said that Slavery is associated with the Western culture more than in the Arab one and it does exist in the West more than in the Arab world until now but in its modern version and that's not my argument."
That's where you are wrong. Provide me credible sources saying western culture is 'more' prone to slavery and we are ready to argue. Infact Slavery has been entrenched in the Arab culture since pre-Islamic times.
  • "that images in the lead should be neutral and represent the whole article most of the article isn't even about Arab slavery yet you are putting images randomly in the leads." Using that logic most of article isn't about the transatlantic either.
  • Also I want you to justify the removal of 2nd Image which has been here for 7 years now and has been historically very important. Balolay (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Balolay
For the third time that's not my argument
I am not trying to justify that image and I never deleted it and if you scroll up in the talk page you see that all of what I was arguing about is the lead images that you are constantly reverting and refusing to listen but edit warring--SharabSalam (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Balolay: Did you read what I said about MOS:LEADIMAGE? SharabSalam (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eperoton Could you please give Balolay an advice about the lead image? I ((think)) he disrespect me so much for some reason and respect you for some reason.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam I have thoroughly read MOS:LEADIMAGE, and this image doesn't break any rules mentioned there. Your primary concern throughout this thread is that this Image refers to Arab slave trade when in reality Europeans did most of the trade, which is factually incorrect and logically incoherent.
Regarding Musicfan122's (recently blocked as a socpuppet troll) argument that there is already an image in Arab section, that's incorrect too since both images are related but are entirely different from geographical and temporal sense. And there is no wiki rule that says two images from same topic can't be used in a wiki article.
Thirdly, please stop tagging other editors and wasting their useful time. Regards. Balolay (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Balolay No my argument is only about the lead image which you are trying to add with no consensus that has been made. I am not talking about European trade or anything did you read this? "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery and this is not the only article you are doing this to! btw you are the one who is wasting my time with this willy-nilly additions to the lead section --SharabSalam (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam you said No my argument is only about the lead image which you are trying to add with no consensus that has been made. Actually this thread was started by Tobby72 in response to Musicfan122's disruptive editing who was trying to remove this image and another 7 year old one due to his pro-Arab bias. You joined in only later. No other editor objected to its addition when it was first added.
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery . If the same logic is applied than none of the Images about European slavery should be in the article except in the relevant section i.e., trans-atlantic slave trade because Europeans weren't responsible for majority of the slave trade either! Balolay (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Balolay: now you are totally wasting my time with this nonsense debate I am talking about the lead image and this is a wikipedian policy it should apply everywhere. I am not putting any photo in the lead about European or trans-atlantic anywhere. I dont waste my time adding images into the lead to push POV--SharabSalam (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam so now you are retracting from your original stance which was "the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc" and now saying there shouldn't be any image about Arab or European slave trade in the lead altogether. Well, that's not fair and it shows your lack of interest in a productive debate. Regards Balolay (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for the last time my argument is not about this. I am wondering whethar you see what I am saying or not? I am saying this Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic...Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. 20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery . --SharabSalam (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you combined two qoutes together to muniplate what I said? XD--SharabSalam (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam20% or less is about Muslim slavery and yet you are pushing for the images in the lead to be about Muslim slavery Firstly, the image doesn't mention 'Muslim' slavery for God's sake. It's interesting that you are trying to divorce Islam from Arab slavery on Arab slave trade yet here you are making it a religious issue. Those Arab traders could well be Christians you do know that do you? You can't have it both ways.
Secondly please stop making 20% claim it's annoying. The BBC source I give earlier gives an estimate of 17 million compared to trans-atlantic slave trade's figure of 21 million. Balolay (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me?I said 20% of the article is about Arab slavery!!
@Drmies and Oshwah: How can I have a "productive" debate with this editor if he/she manipulates what I say? Could you tell him to stop this strawman fallacy? --SharabSalam (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about?! You clearly mentioned multiple times that muslims did 20% of the slavery. Bbc source gives 17 million figure but doesn't give percentage figure. I just want a source proving that. Throwing random figures around isn't helpful.You are clearly basing the entire argument of this image not being representative of the article on that 20% figure. I want to know the source?! What's wrong in that? I too want to invite @Drmies and Oshwah: to see the ridiculous claims this editor is making here similar to here here. Balolay (talk)
again look in to the context of what I am talking about. The article is about Slavery in general. 20% of the article is about Muslim slavery and again I am going to qoute from wikipedia policy which says "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" also says Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. I hope you get my point now--SharabSalam (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to tell you that no where the image makes a claim about 'Muslim' slavery. Those Arab traders could well have been Christians unless you believe it has something to do with Islam than you have to retract your statements from Talk:Arab slave trade. Stop making it a religion issue! Balolay (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Arab slavery. so what? still the article is not about Arab slavery. thats your comeback argument? Do you realize that you still have not responded to what MOS:LEADIMAGE says?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • SharabSalam, Balolay, just close this section, start an RfC with the question of a. whether this image (which I just removed) is appropriate for the lead, and MAYBE b. if any image, and if so which image, would be appropriate for the lead. This should not be hard. You're both edit warring, you're both likely to be blocked, you're both arguing about something between yourselves that should be hashed out in a larger forum. Stop it; start an RfC. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Drmies, this image was firstly 2 months ago by him and since then he and another editor kept editwarring and I also came late and also become part of the editwarring. He refuses to start a disscusion and each time he gets reverted he revert and ask us to take it to the talk page. RfC as I also suggested earlier an in edit summary, is a good solution. I am going to start it. Thanks for your suggestion.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Responding to a ping... I agree with Drmies, this seems like a good candidate for an RfC. An RfC on whether the disputed image is appropriate for the lead is a good fit for WP:RFCBRIEF. I'm less sure including Drmies' "MAYBE" suggestions in the RfC would be a good move at this point. On the one hand, there hasn't yet been an attempt to resolve those questions with a narrower audience. But on the other hand, it might be good to get broader input on this point, as this topic is of broad interest. Eperoton (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eperoton, I also agree on what Drmies said. I am just frustrated of adding images to the lead or articles just like that randomly as you can see from his edits he dose that a lot and I think it should stop. He should start reading MOS:IRELEV and MOS:LEADIMAGE because I dont think he is following this policy. --SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies Please note that Balolay use different types of fallacies. He has used strawman fallacy a lot in this discussion and it's really annoying. Take a look at his replies. He misquote what I said like he combined two different quotes from me that were taken out of context and replied to them. He also misrepresents my argument in his replies. Please tell him to stop this. It's really annoying.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Being straw-manned is indeed annoying, but I've read through most of this, and I don't see Balolay doing that. It's hard to follow because neither of you seem to know how to thread a conversation properly here. I post. Then you post, with ":" in front of it. Then I post again (or someone else replies to you), and start that post with "::". You make another reply, the fourth post in series; that starts with ":::". Someone else replies to the second post (the one that started with ":"); their post goes at the bottom of the stack, indented with "::". If the original post started with "*", then the reply is "*:", and the next one is "*::". This is not difficult.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He has misrepresented my argument saying that I am arguing that 20% of Slavery is done by Arabs which is not my argument. My argument was that 20% of (the article) is about Arab slavery. Also he combined two quotes from me in one quote and took them out of context when he qoute me from two different comments in one qoute taken out of context saying

    "the lead image should be more neutral and represent the whole topic of the article MOS:LEADIMAGE most of Slavery was done by Westerns as in Haiti, America, Brazil, Australia etc"

    and I have said in many of my replies that Western slavery is not my argument. Also the problem of replies is mainly because of him not putting ":" in his replies so I add ":" in my reply and get a reply again with no ":" I have tried to fix some these comments here--SharabSalam (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/01/slavery-libya-life-container-180121084314393.html
  2. ^ "Focus on the slave trade". BBC. 3 September 2001. Archived from the original on 25 May 2017.

Inaccurate sourcing #158

Source #158 is written regarding white indentures in the new world, and is not accurately being used here as a source. Many Africans who arrived in North America during the 17th and 18th centuries came under force and threat of violence or death, not under contract as indentured servants.[158]

Many Africans who arrived in North America during the 17th and 18th centuries came under contract as indentured servants.[158] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.27.190 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of African slaves in Indian Ocean / Arab slave trade

Under "Modern History" > "Africa" the number of African slaves in the Arab slave trade is given on the basis of a single source - a short and unsourced summary from BBC. On such an important and potentially controversial issue I would think it would be important to have better and more specific and scholarly sources. Not knowing anything about the subject myself (that's why I looked up this Wikipedia article), I still made an excursion on the net to see if there was anything better out there. Here are a few potential sources that may contain the relevant facts:

1) A longer and more detailed article from BBC.

2) A popular book: The East African Slave Trade: The History and Legacy of the Arab Slave Trade and the Indian Ocean Slave Trade by Charles River Editors (who is not a person but a "boutique digital publisher"). A popular book, it seems, but it may contain an interesting bibliography.

3) Articles in a scholarly journal: Journal of African Development, Spring/Fall 2011.

4) A collection of scholarly articles published by UNESCO: The African Slave Trade from the 15th to the 19th century. Several of the articles collected in this volume deal with Arab / Indian Ocean slave trade.

5) Book (at least semi-scholarly): Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora by Ronald Segal (see Wikipedia article about the author for his credentials).

I hope some of this is helpful. Filursiax (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identification, image

@Rjensen I moved the image to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-L%C3%A9on_G%C3%A9r%C3%B4me#Orientalism so that it is still available, but in a more appropriate context

Here is some literature on slavery and slave-trade in the Middle East, to prove that my comment on Gérôme's representation of the slave market is not just "politicized personal opinion": Toledano (1982, 48–54, 106–7)[1] discusses 19th century descriptions of slave markets in Istanbul and other cities of the Ottoman Empire. Also see Toledano (1998, 4-16).[2]

For the question of historic accuracy in Gérôme's paintings of the slave market (and other oriental scenes) see, e.g., Lees (2012).[3]

To sum up what these (and other scholars) have found out: from the 1850s on, slaves were traded in the houses of slave traders, because the slave trade was forbidden in public. Even before the ban, enslaved women were not publicly exposed in the streets when shown to potential buyers, but sitting in chambers. There is no evidence whatsoever that they were naked. Gérôme's paintings can be considered to be accurate only when it comes to the architecture in the background, for which he used photographs and his own sketches. The scenes and interactions taking place in these settings were a product of his imagination. They were erotic fantasies. The Oriental background served to make depictions of nudity legitimate for European viewers and buyers. The "Others'" cruel treatment of women and slaves was used as a pretext to paint, and look at paintings of, naked women.

This is why Gérôme's painting is inappropriate here. I do not say it should be deleted from Wikipedea, but it needs to be contextualized. Pumslau (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Pumslau[reply]

In addition, not only slaves were barefoot in the Middle East in the 19th century. On historical photographs, e.g. from the collection of Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, one can see many free men walking barefoot. The image is therefore not useful to illustrate "identification" of slaves in the Middle East, where wearing shoes or sandals marked the social status of a person, but did not necessarily serve to distinguish free from enslaved persons. Pumslau (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Pumslau[reply]

References

  1. ^ Toledano, E. R. (1982). The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Suppression: 1840-1890. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2. ^ Toledano, Ehud R. 1998. Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East. Seattle/London: University of Washington Press.
  3. ^ Lees, Sarah. 2012. “Jean-Léon Gérôme: Slave Market”. In Nineteenth-century European Paintings at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, edited by S. Lees. 359–363. Williamstown, Mass: Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute.

@Julian von Bredow: Please, be aware of edit warring policy. As you do not respond to my arguments in the talk page but continue reverting my edits, I might consider reporting on it. WP:3RR broken already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumslau (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion Request: The Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. declined) as premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance and discussion through edit summaries will not suffice. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.[reply]

There's no good reason to use the fanciful Gérôme image here; now replaced by the much more scrupulous reportage of David Roberts. Ewulp (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely incorrect sentence needs changing

This sentence needs to change BADLY:

-The first country to abolish slavery was the United Kingdom, where slavery was non-existent by 1200 AD and was legally prohibited under the Slave Trade Act of 1807 (although slavery remained legal in some British colonies until 1843).

This is wrong on MANY counts:

1. The United Kingdom did not exist in 1200, so already wrongly stated. For this to make any sense we have to look at England, Welsh polities, Ulster and Scotland separately.

2. None of them explicitly banned slavery by 1200 - it died out de facto by around 1200, but this was not unique to Britain. England had a prohibition on the slave *trade*.

3. Several countries simply did not have slavery at the time either. If we are including former state entities (or those which banned it then later had it), we need to consider ancient nations that didn't have slavery per se, even possibly including the Achaemenids.

4. The abolition of the slave trade in 1807 post-dates the slave trade ban in France, though France brought it back. Denmark banned the slave trade in 1803. Other parts of the world weren't involved in a slave trade. Britain was earlier than other major slave trading powers, so if the editor is a patriotic Brit they can be proud of that if they wish, but as it stands it is far from correct.

5. Going the other way, the ban on the slave trade is *not* when slavery was banned in Britain. England annulled slavery retrospectively in the Somerset vs. Stewart case in 1772, and Scotland banned slavery in 1799. The status of slavery in Ireland is a more controversial one, though the "United Kingdom" only began by that name in 1800. Again, these were not the *first*.

6. More a technicality, but slavery was abolished throughout all British colonies in 1833 effective by 1838, not 1843. 1843 saw its abolition in India, but India was not a British colony at the time, but under the East India Company - precisely why the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act did not apply there and other areas of East India Company rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.244.117 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


ADD LEGAL DEFINITION OF SLAVERY?

California Penal Code 181 and use of word CUSTODY by Sheriff Probation and Parole Officers who are paid money to hold in involuntary servitude (this could arguably be Forcing people to report for duty/work/appearance/jury duty? without just compensation) The Justice System also caps wages at around .10cents and hour and wage garnishes that amount and money sent from relatives. I think the minumum was if not abided by and the maximum wage is around .31cents. I seek to employ prisoners! link at tiny. cc/jointventureproject see Joint Venture Project of CA TITLE 9 CCR Ca Code Regulations

Pasted/cited from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-181.html Every person who holds, or attempts to hold, any person in involuntary servitude, or assumes, or attempts to assume, rights of ownership over any person, or who sells, or attempts to sell, any person to another, or receives money or anything of value, in consideration of placing any person in the custody, or under the power or control of another, or who buys, or attempts to buy, any person, or pays money, or delivers anything of value, to another, in consideration of having any person placed in his or her custody, or under his or her power or control, or who knowingly aids or assists in any manner any one thus offending, is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three or four years.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavery&oldid=914058227"