Talk:Slavery/Archive 2

slave traders

Maybe someone must write one article about this. Mongos like to Pedro Blanco or Mongo de Gallinas. Théodore Canot or Mongo Canot, John Ormond or Mongo John...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.173.119 (talk • contribs)

I think your edit may have been legitimate, but you really have to be careful with terminology. I for one have no clue what a Mongo is, the wikilink you use leads to a disambiguation, none of the Mongo terms described there seems to fit. One xay to solve this would be for you to write a short stub explaining the term Mongo, then link correctly from any articles you intend to use the term. Obviously assuming it's an acceptable term... Alos in future please sign talk page contributions.--Caranorn 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf http://www.pdavis.nl/Gallinas.htm 212.97.173.119 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain what a Mongo is. The first link is a 704 page document in Spanish so that's no help. The second link doesn't contain the word Mongo anywhere in it. 198.6.46.11 13:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Tone of Academic Racism in this article makes me sick

I can't pinpoint any one thing, but the tone of this article is horribly detatched and cold. I understand the 'neutrality' aspect of Wikipedia, but this garble 'white-washes' and 'glosses' over slavery. It is almost entirely from the perspective of slave owners and northern aristocrats. There is not one single quote from a person actually held in slavery! This article presents a lot of death numbers, but fails to illustrate the true torture of the institution to any real degree. More over it seems to make more point of the economic 'pros', seemingly because it is shockingly against popular perception. While these 'pros' make be factual, they are imbalaced in the article.

Aside from that I actually was redirected here from the non-existant Slave Market. This article failed my search-A Slave Market, the place, should probably have it's own page. Guillotine and Death Penalty aren't on the same page?

I would be too ashamed to contribute to this article, seriously, I wouldn't even know where to begin. This article is an amazing example of how a conglomeration of academic tidbits and cold statistics can make the institution of slavery look historically rational and religiously sanctified. Where is the opposition? Where is the Balance? and MOST IMPORTANTLY:

WHERE IS THE TESTIMONY FROM SLAVES THEMSELVES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrzqxgl (talk • contribs) 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing for a biased interpretation of slavery. Wikipedia can only describe things in an objective or as you call it "detached and cold" manner. It matters little what the commonly held opinion is in modern Western society, slavery is a historical fact much like feudalism and warfare and must be treated as such. Also, there are no testimonies from slaves because, (I'm going out on a limb here) they were never taught to write.--SCJE 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are slave reports and narratives, collected by the Works Progress Administration. These are not very popular today, as the former salves often painted their masters as kind and the institution as benevolent. Most people are more interested in salacious and fantastical reports that attempt to render the South in as negative light as possible, while ignoring this source completely except for cherry picked narratives. I'll see what I can to to track some down for inclusion if anyone is interested Die4Dixie 22:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

to give access to others who may be interested: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query Die4Dixie 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Of course, what is relevant to the Wikipedia article would be the analysis of these narratives by reliable professionals. Simply cutting and pasting selections that paint slavery as a benevolent institution would simply be orignal research. Part of what professionals will do in analyzing the relevance of these interviews will be to compare the information with that derived from other sources. They will also judge how the passage of time and the actual context of the interviews (i.e. a white interviewer asking questions in the Jim Crow South where former slaveholders or their chldren are in positions of power) impacts the accuracy and completeness of the testimony. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that any interpretation by any person of these accounts would be original research. That they are reported and cataloged by the Library of Congress makes them worthy of inclusion able to pass inclusionary muster of the most stringent kind.If your original research on white interviewers etc. were valid, then there would be no reports of bad masters, which , having read over one hundred odd ones of the over two thousand in the collection, I assure you is not the case. I would think that they would know more about the institution than you or I, and their views and recollections should not be silenced because they don't reinforce what we ought to believe. Die4Dixie 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

BTW, I found your comment about "cut and paste" to be highly insulting. I am quite capable of critical analysis, can attribute quotes and cite them , as well as summarize and paraphrase. The cut and pasting in this article has already been done, as I haven't even started yetDie4Dixie 03:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Certainly anyone's interpretation of the narratives is original research. As capable as you may or may not be at "critical analysis", it is Wikipedia policy to leave the interpretation to reliable secondary sources rather than its editors like you or I. A far as the limitations on the use of the narratives, there is quite a good explanation at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snintro00.html -- especially the sections at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snintro14.html and http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snintro15.html Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I never suggested that I should analyze what the slaves reported. I merely propose to report what they have said, attribute it properly, and allow the reader to draw his own conclusion. It is factual that the former slaves reported the conditions of their servitude; that is, one can verify this and corroborate this easily. Reporting reasons why they may have reported the way they did is conjecture and not factual, as it cannot be proven or disproven that the reason given is "true", only that someone truely said it was (the reason). IMHO, think primary sources ought to be used, if not preferred, and they will be incorporated when I have finished reading them ALL. Please feel free to read them with me. I can't imagine that someone's interpretation could be more valuable than the primary source, unles one had an agenda.Die4Dixie 06:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

And I just examined the links that you provided , and am in stitches that you would argue for inclusion of psuedoscientists like that. His discipline does not enjoy wide respect in academia ,as I'm sure you are aware, except in very limited circles. There are schools of sociological thought that say that sociologists should merely report social phenomena, not attempt to interpret them. Die4Dixie 06:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

The cautions about the use of oral hstories by the alleged "pseudoscientist" are exactly what any professional historian would subscribe to, aren't they? Are historians also "pseudoscientists"? Fully expect the limitations ofthe oral histories to be discussed in the article if they are used inappropriately by you or anybody else. I note from the footnotes to the links I provided that some SCV members were using the narratives in a community college class to argue that 70% of slaves were happy with their lot -- somehing that actual historians (and I suppose sociologists) have totally missed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PS The "pseudoscientist's" credentials are available at http://www.sociology.ku.edu/people/yetman/. Since his overall conclusion is that the narratives do have value, should we reject that conclusion also? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am not your adversary. The post to which I directed my original post questioned where the reports by the slaves themselves were. I knew they existed, and offered to find them. Regardless of how they are interpreted ( and reading the reasons your sociologist offers makes him appear to think that these people were simplistic, childlike, and unworthy of serious, dignified attention). You seem to argue that historians are scientists??? My reference to pseudoscience is the sociological aspect of his credentials. There is a movement in the historical discipline producing social historians. I view them with the same general distrust that I reserve for sociologists. I prefer my history as the "Just the facts, ma'am," variety. IMHO, there is room for the narratives of the people who lived in conditions of bondage and servitude in the article dedicated to their former condition. How arrogant of us to be so dismissive of their voices 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

PS. I note that you have come to this conversation with preconceived notions about the use of the narratives when you suggest that they will be " used inappropriately by you or anybody else." That is patently offensive. In fact, between the "cut and paste" comment and this one there appears to be a developing trend. If you are unable to assume good faith, then I suggest that you leave the editing of this article to those who can and to those can do so without imputing dishonest use of a source before the first edit has been made. Cordially, Die4Dixie 17:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you just made the very serious charge that Professor Yetman is a racist when you clam that he thinks the interviewees were “simplistic, childlike, and unworthy of serious, dignified attention.” In fact, you can’t point to a single statement that implies that, can you? In fact, he warns that many of the people conducting the interviews might have had such attitudes -- a very reasonable assumption for the 1930’s don’t you think? But what makes your personal attack on the professor particularly ironic is your reference at Talk:Dunning School when you refer to “Dr. Dunning’s contributions to scholarship.” In fact, the reason why much of the racist Dunning School is rejected by modern scholars is their treatment of African Americans as “simplistic, childlike, and unworthy of serious, dignified attention.”

I see that in addition to labeling all sociologists as unreliable you have now added social historians as unworthy. I can’t imagine what someone who rejects some of the most reliable sources writing about slavery could possibly contribute to this article.

As far as anyone going into this with preconceived notions, you are the one who stated, at the very beginning “Most people are more interested in salacious and fantastical reports that attempt to render the South in as negative light as possible, while ignoring this source completely except for cherry picked narratives.” Exactly what historians writing about slavery are you familiar enough with that you can support that prejudicial claim? Name some names and make your case -- if you can. Kolchin? Berlin? Stampp? Blasingame? Genovese? Morgan? Davis? Oakes? Who ARE you talking about?

And BTW, I can’t see how the slave narratives, which at best cover the last decade or so of slavey in the United States would be relevant to this particular article. A more appropriate place would be either of the two articles that discuss slavery or the history of slavery in the US. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yawn...Who said that historians are the "most people" to whom I referred ... Yawn... I make no charge of racism. Are the stories about about "marser" in the slave quarters not salacious? Are the stories of beating not fantastical (grotesque)? To which of the words do you object? Did Dunning make no contribution to scholarship? The PhD that you posses to rival his was awarded by which university? I now quote your source :"Moreover, it is apparent that some informants, mistaking the interviewer for a government representative who might somehow assist them in their economic plight, replied to questions with flattery and calculated exaggeration in an effort to curry the interviewer's favor. Exaggeration may often have been the consequence of the interview itself, which gave informants an opportunity to be the center of attention." Does this not seem simplistic and childlike? Interviews like that, if true, would be worthy of dignified and serious attention? I was apparently mistaken when I believed that you didn't WP:OWN it. YAWN.Die4Dixie 03:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But to be entirely fair, this probably is not the place for it. I started by offering to find the sources requested by another editor who felt they were needed.Die4Dixie 03:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand both the uses and limitations of oral histories. Treating testimony given 72 years after the event without an analysis of the conditions of the interview and the characteristics of the participants would be irresponsible. As far as Dunning, I have updated the Dunning School article with analysis from some major historians. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those troubling edits there. Please see my edits to the page and the relevant talk page. Your hack job on that article necessitates my reviewing all your edits to make sure that they don't suffer from the same deficiencies. Thanks for the extra work. Ialea iacta est. Die4Dixie 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs) /s>

So I see the page has made some remarkable progressions without including testimony from anyone-fair enough. It really was the cold language that was quite upsetting and the unbalanced economic side, the south clearly fell flat on slavery, as did Rome. The abolition section's growth is great. But there is still nothing about long term psychological effects on an enslaved society from the Jews to American Blacks. This article should probably sound a little more like the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Wiki articles, which I have read, and which do portray the human suffering alongside the political problems of ending World War II. I do feel this article is a lot more human and less the cold robot that I first saw. so Thanks to the wikicommunity. The See Also section fills in many of the gaps. I hope it continues to develope in a evolved direction and not like the 1930's Encyclopedia Britannica Article about the Klu Klux Klan. I'd still say this article is more representative of the memory and writings of slave owners and outsiders than enslaved peoples themselves. --Pyrzqxgl (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

modern stats

Apparently there was a claim in the UK press this weekend that the estimated number of slaves world-wide, given a broad definition, in 2006 is the highest ever in recorded history but can't verify this. Anyone?

213.152.58.77 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).M.

Mongos or Slave Traders

by 212.97.173.119 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Blanco Fernández de Trava, El Mongo de Gallinas, spaniard negrero née in Malaga, was one of the most notorious white slave traders who established himself in the islands in the mouth of the Gallinas River, near the present Sierra Leone-Liberia border, in the early 1800’s.

Contents [ 1 Career 2 List of Ships in Gallina´s harbor 3 Sources 4 Links

Career Before investing in the slave trade, Blanco worked on a sugar mill in Cuba. Ship´s captain, son. He sailed to Africa on the Conquistador, one of his ships. He set up his slave business in 1822 with his partner Tomás Rodríguez Burón and by 1839 they controlled a network that fed Cuba’s insatiable hunger for slaves. Blanco, adding up the partner Pedro Martinez, rapidly expanded the scope of his operation by striking up a working relationship with King Shiakar Mana interchanging gunfires by slaves, provoking civil war in the realm. He eventually had agents stationed at Cape Mount, Shebar, Digby, Yougn Sestos and elsewhere. Blanco entered a partnership also with Carballo with a center of operations in Havana and other departments in Puerto Rico, Trinidad, and Texas. Later, incresing the Society with Francisco Martí y Torrens, and Pedro Juan Zulueta de Ceballos, his mercantile standing was so high, that credit bills were enthusiastically accepted in New York, London and many other well-known financial centers. In Gallinas, he built himself a private kingdom with storehouses on an island, his personal space and office on another island, and houses for his African wives on yet another island. Slaves awaiting shipment were housed on the islands of Taro and Kamasun. In 1838, Blanco left Africa for Cuba and then on to Barcelona, all the while trading slaves. He left Gallinas just before most of the Amistad's Africans reached the coast, but he left behind a network of representatives to carry on his business. It is very possible that some of them handled the Amistad's Africans. At any rate, he played a vital part in the development of the slave trade in this region, safeguarded Bioko and Annobon for Spain. His firm went under in 1848; and in 1854 he passed away in Genoa.

List of Ships in Gallina´s harbor From January to November of 1840. By english commander Joseph Denman, to Sierra Leone Gobernor.

USA, Lisa Dalvison 200 Tn. USA, Theopleidas Chan 160 Tn. USA, Alejander 200 Tn. USA, Seminole 100 Tn. USA, Crannfort 300 Tn. USA, Warbely 200 Tn. Hamburguer, Argus 100 Tn. French, Antonie Feriol 109 Tn. French, Jeune Frederike 200 Tn.

Sources Adam Jones, From Slaves to Palm Kernels: A History of the Galinhas Country (West Africa), 1730-1890 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983)

Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997)

UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA, DOLORES GARCÍA CANTÚS, Departamento de Historia Contemporanea. Fernando Poo: Una Aventura Colonial Española En El África Colonial (1778-1900) Servei de Publicacions 2004.

Links http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf http://www.pdavis.nl/Gallinas.htm

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Blanco"

Mongos in West Africa http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UV/AVAILABLE/TDX-0127105-131719/garcia.pdf 212.97.173.119 14:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedro_Blanco"

---

I'll repeat what I stated above from the last time you posted this information; That still doesn't explain what a Mongo is. The first link is a 704 page document in Spanish so that's no help. The second link doesn't contain the word Mongo anywhere in it. 198.6.46.11 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Australia

Maybe a section on slavery in Australia (Blackbirding)? Sad mouse 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Article linking and tense

In hopes of prompting people to shorten this rather long article, I will try to link various forms of slavery (sex slavery, chattel slavery, etc.) to other forms of slavery. Also, I was wondering if this article could be more readable if it was either in the past or present tense. I'm under the impression that it's both. --Umalee 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Size

I added a 'very long' template to encourage people to reduce the article size by making other articles, etc. I am new, and unsure where it is most approriate to place it. If anyone has any issues with it, please take it to my talk page. --Umalee 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion-Slavery

deleted "Keep in mind that slavery was a fundamental part of all societies at the time." Generic, generalised, unsupported statement. Unless anyone can define "the time" and can list proof that "all societies" had slavery as a "fundamental part"... --Chalyres 09:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to be defending religion in its role in the perpetuation of slavery. The information is not presented in an objective and unbiased manner. --jlhancock

Also only no mention of the pivotal role of Islam in the slave trade.

Islamic injunctions against the enslavement of Muslims led to massive importation of slaves from the outside."Muhammad took pains in urging the faithful to free their slaves as a way of expiating their sins; by lending the moral authority of Islam to slavery, Muhammad assured its legitimacy. Islam by recognizing and codifying the slavery expanded it

Request Protection

Reason : High Levels of Vandalism; possible sockpuppetry - 66.226.33.19 and Skeetskeet1 Please Remove message when issue is settled . Mbralchenko 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-context info in lead

Qqzzccdd has added the same info to the lead three times now. I and another editor removed it and he replaced it. I find that the info is out-of-context and doesn't really belong in the lead. It doesn't add to the basic understanding of slavery to know that slaves have been prohibited from carrying weapons since ancient times. If this information belongs at all in the article, it isn't appropriate for the lead. I'm interested to know what other editors think of this. janejellyroll 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfree man without weapon = slave. This is more close to definition then modern definition unfree labour.Qqzzccdd 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this information? janejellyroll 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has sources for different point of view. Qqzzccdd 21:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a "different point of view," you will have to source it. Editors cannot just edit articles to reflect their own opinions. janejellyroll 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"No slaves shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written orders for his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from one place to another. Arms in possession of a slave contrary to this prohibition shall be forfeited to him who will seize them."

-A Bill Concerning Slaves, Virginia Assembly, 1779

Is this enough? Qqzzccdd 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there are many many examples of slaves that were actually allowed to carry weapons, even slave armies and slave bodyguards (consider the personal guard to the Ottoman emperor, for example), and there are many examples of free people not allowed to carry weapons. It is simply not a generally true statement, all you show is that it was but one of many laws that differentially regulated slave behaviour in Virginia in 1779. Sad mouse 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Slavery/america

Removed "Slavery has had a ubiquitous and almost universal role in nearly all ancient civilizations." as intro. unsourced, unproven statement (and ubiquitous, universal, and nearly all is pretty redundant, methinks). Besides, it's in the "slavery in america" section. America is not an ancient civilisation, last time i checked.--Chalyres 08:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

I reverted Emote's edit not because of vandalism concerns but to re-edit taking Emote's concerns into consideration (Emote had a good point) but the edit was only a deletion of sections which not only addressed the personal opinion but added new opinion. I hope the resulting reversion+edit can be seen as beneficial.--Chalyres 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted to a previous slavery/christianity version--previous versions of the paragraph have had similar "chrisianity can't be blamed" edits (this one, about the bible offering "practical solutions," was just plain didactic).

Legal protection of slaves

I appreciate Chalyres's desire to retain some of the original content in this section. My concern, however, is the statement that there were "few restrictions" on slave abuse. As it stands currently, the phrasing implies that slaves were more or less unprotected by law. But the very next sentence in the article sets forth several important legal protections for slaves. They could not be murdered, raped, or cruelly punished. What warrants the statement that "there were few restrictions of the conduct of a master toward his slave"? Aren't the aforementioned protections sufficient? Emote 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i'm thinking that the whole section should be re-written, actually. i think what we're both working on is an over-edited section that has lost much relevance to the subject heading. to answer your question, though, they could be murdered, raped, and cruelly punished, though there were laws against it (slaves could not bring their masters to trial, and a slave's testimony held almost no judicial weight). the very original point of "christian decency" (i didn't write it, by the way, i'm new to this article) was probably meant to convey that meaning (an owner could only be prosecuted if a family member or neighbour brought allegations against them). Therefore, the "restrictions" on slave abuse were meaningful only insofar as they were written down somewhere and never used. In order to fix the obvious confusion what's left of the section might cause, i think it should be expanded into several paragraphs, one detailing laws against abuse, one detailing the impossibility of a slave using these laws to obtain justice, and then a few references of historical examples (Children of God's Fire is a gold mine for this, as soon as i get my borrowed copy back from a colleague). So, the section should eventually cover laws governing master-slave behaviour, the near-impossibility of a slave ever getting to bring any charges before a court, and examples. Does that make sense?--Chalyres 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point better now. I agree that the section should be rewritten (or removed -- I don't have time to rewrite it). The fact that a slave's testimony held little weight had more to do with his color than with his status as a slave. In other words, the question of legal testimony was a racial issue, not a slavery issue. R.L. Dabney states:

The slave was not permitted to testify against a white man, and this was a restriction made proper by his low grade of truthfulness, his difference of race, and the fact that he was to so great a degree subject to the will of another. But the seeming severity of this restriction was almost wholly removed, among us, by the fact that he always had, in his master, an interested and zealous patron and guardian, in all collisions with other white men. From oppression by his own master he found his sufficient protection, usually, in affection and self-interest. But in most of the abolition States, the wretched free black was equally disqualified to testify against his white oppressor; and the vast difference against him was, that he had no white master, the legal equal of his assailant, eagerly engaged by self-interest, affection, and honourable pride, to protect him. The black "citizen" was the helpless victim of the white swindler or bully.

In general, I think this particular topic is blown out of proportion in the discussion of American slavery. (I'm not accusing you of blowing anything out of proportion. I'm just saying that it tends to be unduly emphasized.) If ever slavery was humane, Christian, and beneficial to both white and black, it was in America. I would venture to say that American slaves were far safer in their homes in 1850 than school children are in the classroom today. Anyway, take all that for what it's worth. Good luck with the rewriting. Emote 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If those schoolchildren are dragged in chains across an ocean just to get to school, sure.--Chalyres 12:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that any slaves were dragged across the ocean in 1850. Congress in 1808 passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves. Emote 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that many slave codes - including the Muslim ones - had prohibitions against freeing slaves against their will, to prevent them being turned out to starve once they were worn out. 203.221.31.19 09:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) P.M.Lawrence

The Quran section should mention verses

like the Bible section.--58.104.32.70 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the bit about Hadith being binding is actually incorrect - they are not binding. Hadith are related stories about the life of Muhammad, and carry weight dependant on the perceived strength of evidence the Hadith is factual.

More importantly the Qu'ran does not accept or endorse the institution of slavery. Whether or not islam does is another matter, but the Qu'ran only refers to slaves being freed. (see discussion below).

The Link for Chattel slavery links here

So im removing it

--Ggohtrin 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

individual rights

Slaves can certainly possess certain rights, and in many cultures, using the notion of "individual rights" is anachronistic, because no one had rights in the modern sense.. "Property of another person" is quite adequate to describe the condition. Goldfritha 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed the following links from the "Historical" subsection of the "External Links" section of the article, for the following reasons:

• The link African history by Africans is dead (no webpage could be found when I clicked on the link).
• The link Slavery in the Bible, which one might assume to connect to some reasonably scholarly webpage pertaining to slavery in Biblical times, actually links to a webpage promoting the notion that "Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are the Israelites!", by using some extremely questionable exegesis from Biblical texts.
  

If anyone has any objections to my actions, please state them.--Spurius Furius 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! We've got Semi-protection

Well, we serious editors can breathe a little easier for the next two weeks, free of the ongoing assault from anonymous vandals. I'm just sorry I waited so long to make the request! (Something tells me I'm gonna be requesting protection all over again after it expires...) Cgingold 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Slavery in the Americas should be removed or edited

We already have a section for brief histories of slavery in various times and places. We shouldn't have a section just on slavery in the Americas.

And if we do decide to keep the section, it shouldn't place so much emphasis on slavery in North America. Less than 5% of slaves brought to the Americas were brought to North America while about 10 million slaves went to South America and Brazil.

Agree, while the North American slavery is the best known example of modern slavery it is far from the only one. As (I believe) it is stated in the article, large scale slavery has existed in the Arab world in our time and in Russia up till the 18th century.

That said, the American and especially the North American slavery is very important precisely because it is so well known. 130.243.153.236 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was also very different from slavery in South America. Having a section about the Americas gives the false impression that the slave experience in both North and South America was very much the same. But back to the point. The article shouldn't have such a large section devoted to the particular experiences of one group. That's what the "main article" links are for. If no one objects, then I'll be deleting the section in a few days.

By deleting the section, I trust you just mean the title/heading and not the section itself? Grant | Talk 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I mean the entire section. This is an article about slavery in general. Other pages exist and are reserved for more specific treatments. Perhaps moving the page would be better. Mc6809e 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both of those suggestions are completely unacceptable and I don't understand why anyone would make them. Slavery in the U.S. is the best-known example of slavery in a developed country, and many people will be expecting to find it in this article. Grant | Talk 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Best-known"? So what? The point of Wikipedia isn't to tell people what they already know. Besides, if people wish to learn of the history of slavery in the United States, then they can read the perfectly fine article History of slavery in the United States. It is completely unacceptable to focus on a particular example of slavery in an article that concerns slavery in general. The History of Slavery article goes through a lot of trouble to give a thorough history without focusing on the slavery in the United States, yet you think this even more general article should focus on slavery in the United States. I can't understand what would motivate someone to support such a thing. Mc6809e 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "focus". There is nothing wrong with long articles whene required, or in duplicating material from one article to another. In fact there are part of a comprehensive approach to any subject. They are also official Wikipedia policy. See:

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper
• Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics.

Grant | Talk 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Overemphasis on American (USA) slavery

How is it that slavery in the Americas is one of the largest sections in the article, and that most of the section is about USA slavery? What about slavery among the pre-Columbian Amerindians? Also, how could John Casor become a citizen of the United States before the United States came into existence? The Treaty of Paris concluding the American Revolutionary War recognized thirteen independent countries (states)--it was only later that these nations were unified under one nation. Some of those thirteen independent nations outlawed slavery in their country (state). Should this be mentioned? Chiss Boy 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a line here: "By 1804, NJ would be the final "Northern" state to end enslavement." I think this would be a good place to have a discussion of gradual emancipiation, which is what NJ did. In gradual emancipation, no one living was freed, but their children were. This resulted in NJ being the first to end enslavement, but still having slaves (some 30 or so) when the Constitution was amended to end slavery in the US. 138.162.128.52 15:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversations about slavery

Is it right for me to talk to a person about slavery? Just because it's a high-school subject doesn't mean that it's wrong for me to talk about slavery. Is that right? 72.194.116.63 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 17.00 24 March 2007

Timing of repugnance, non-NPOV as biased towards American slavery

I think this sentence needs sourced or rewritten, as the worldwide repugnance towards slavery began in the late 18th century, not in the 19th century. This is why the trade was banned or outlawed early in the 19th century by many countries.

"While slavery has been a prominent feature of many civilizations throughout recorded human history, it has acquired a repugnant aura, in part as a result of the inhumane treatment within large-scale racialized slavery that developed in the nineteenth century."

KP Botany 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

it depends on how much repugnance you consider decisive. Also do remember that the slave trade was banned by several states, including South Carolina herself, with no overwhelming objection to slavery as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None of this is the point. The point is what the sentence says! The sentence says slavery acquired a "repugnant aura" due to racialized slavery that developed in the nineteenth century. Yet the article lists the end of slavery or the slave trade in many parts of the world BEFORE this development. The point is that the sentence states that slavery "acquired a repugnant aura, in part as a result of the inhumane treatment within large-scale racialized slavery that developed in the nineteenth century." Since the slave trade was outlawed at the start of the 19th century by the northern states and in the US very early in the 19th century, was illegal in England in 1790s, and very early in the 19th century in Canada it does not seem that slavery gained its repugnant aura from actions that happened AFTER it was banned or partially abolished in ways in much of the world. The repugnance came earlier. If it didn't some explanation has to be offered in the text for why slavery was not repugnant to people but was banned all sorts of places before the large-scale racialized slavery which only "developed in the nineteenth century."

So, either the repugnant aura came earlier and contributed to its earlier abolishing in whole or in part all over the world, OR it was banned in spite of not having an aura of repugnance. If the latter, why was slavery abolished while not considered repugnant? KP Botany 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

um.....cool

sweet im editing wiki. cool!! This edit was posted by User:12.72.134.0. Please sign your posts using four tildas, like this ~~~~. And, yes, it's cool, but only if you add relevant content, because anybody can edit. KP Botany 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman inconsistency?

How does this:

until the 2nd century when laws protecting slaves were instituted - a master could legally kill a slave

reconcile with this:

In any event, the Cornelian Law in 82 BCE forbade masters from killing a slave

? 86.132.136.165 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gets interesting: By Roman law a master could not kill his slave, however, he could do ANYTHING (including kill) his own son.71.197.106.123 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in India?

Hi,

I thought it might be interesting to add a section about slavery in India. There's a little bit there, but nothing about India from 1000 BC - 500 AD. That's a big hole! Anyway, I might draft up something and insert it. Good idea?

Dubrovnik first to outlaw slavery

Please, add to the article that Republic of Dubrovnik was the first state in Europe to outlaw slavery (1416) [1]. --89.172.125.188 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That would require a better and more detailed source than Dubrovnik's rourist bureau. For example, not selling slaves to the Turk would be meritorious, but not the same thing as outlawing slavery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The serfdom in the Russian Empire is improperly defined as the type of slavery in which only a part of serf's work output belonged to the landlord. Actually, serfs themselves were property of their lord and could be bought and sold just like black slaves in America.i like potTOES

Sounder

Shouldn't Sounder be added to See also/Films —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.239.145 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Sounder is about sharecroppers, not slaves. MJFiorello 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

While I understand the need to have links to other websites that give more information on slavery both contemporary and historical, the number of external links now provided is absolutely excessive. Do we really need 54 links, 26 of which are to the BBC alone? Any thoughts on pruning some of these? Thanks--Spurius Furius 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam came to Abolish and eradicate slavery

First of All you did not mention that Kafour Al-Ikhshedi who was a Black Nubian slave …was an (Egyptian Ruler too)..! Plus Mamluki does not mean White Slave at all...Very strange to see a whole State in Egypt was ruled by Slaves as leaders of that country.

You can have one odd Occasion in Roman History that slave could be Gladiator or an Army leader. But a whole State governing and ruleing a key Pivotal country... Egypt .. that was ruled by Slaves as MASTERS Rulers or leaders taking Zakat alms ..declaring wars...and making peace !!

Only Happened in Arab History .

But that is not the Issue...The Issue is Islam and Slavery.

Let's Start that we are "All born Free pure Muslims"..without Sins.

Set your face firmly toward the Religion, as a pure natural believer, God’s natural pattern on which He made humanity. (30, 30)

Then let's go to Some of your assertions and quotations briefly to answer them and to Show how Islam Abolished slavery.

In Islam the reward of emancipation of a slave, is Salvation from sins being committed ..e.g'...[090:012] and what shall teach thee what is the steep?...'[090:013] (It is) the setting free of a slave… see Verse 90:10-16..and in many many verses in Quran.

You have said {In Islam, the Qur'an accepts and endorses the institution of slavery}.

"Zakat alms " which is a "State" institutionlized compulsory Paying tax must be used to free Slaves:-

Quran [9:060] In fact, the ‘zakat/’alms is meant for the needy and the poor, as well as for those appointed to collect and distribute it,to win hearts over (to Islam), to free slaves and those in debt, (to wage a struggle) for the sake of Allah, and to help the wayfarer. It is an obligation imposed by Allah; and Allah is well aware, the Wisest.

The State must Collect the "Zakat alms" to free the slaves Muslims and non Muslims....and those in debt

just imagine if that happen today.. how many people from individual level to nations worldwide will be freed from "the banking global slavery system"?

Specially when you know that taking Interest(usury ) is "totally" prohibited in Islam to all people Muslims and non Muslims alike

Unlike the bible which allows an Israelite to take usury from Gentiles because God bless that Deuteronomy 23:20•!

You have said {The slavery endorsed by the Qur'an limited the source of slaves to those captured in war and those born of two slave parents}.

What do you call Community services ..to misdemeanor criminals is ?

Captives were taken from the blood-thirsty and hostile enemies combatants from the battlefields,but they were also given the right to get their freedom when ever they want.

Verse 24:33 ". And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you.

In this Verse, we see that if a slave requests his freedom from his Muslim master, then his master not only must help him earn his freedom, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life.

For those born of two slave parents,before Islam came in...Islam urged to give them freedom and put it as way to cleanse sins....and the STATE must free them using the Zakat Tax as in verse [9:060]state

In Regard to Concubines relationship. Quran tells Muslims men whom have concubines in the past to pay them back compensation for human dignity OR to marry them which verse 4:25 that is with the permission of their family, to put the end of Concubines relationship.

You have also said that the prophet Muhammad according to a “Haddith” had slaves

"The Prophet said, "Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

This Hadith also corporate with the the Quran that says

"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is [righteousness] to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask,[ and for the ransom of slaves; ]to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing. (Quran, 2:177)"

I can not Imagine That the prophet Who is the embodiment of Quran was keeping slaves for himself, and on the same time Quran asked to free slaves.

Was NOT he righteous enough to free his slaves as the Quran commanded ,and Quran say

[002:285] The Apostle believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, ...., and we obey: ." ?

Quran say [3:064] Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That (1)we worship none but GOD; that (2) we associate no partners with him;that (3)we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we are Muslims.

Number (3)..... that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons (word used is Arbaban) ...not to make People Lords on others to control them.

Verse 9:60 and 3:064 eradicate and put end to all forms of Slavery that is (Body, Mind , and Spiritual) slavery that was and still exist today world wide and in a larger scale.

There are inserted Hadiths and false Stories ( about the prophet) that contradict the QURAN(which the Kernel of Islamic Sharia Laws) and other Prophetic Hadith that corporate the Quranic texts.

These False Hadiths or Stories, made later by “alleged scholars” to justify slavery in Islam, and to keep it going, also by some to demonize the values of Islam, and The prophet.

Answer is by looking back to the Quran.

Islam came in a time that Slavery was a way of life, but made it to be a gradual dismantling of the slavery system.

However If Arabs or muslims Not Abolished Slavery..Muslims today use(Usuary/Interest)..THIS is the Problem of the MUSLIMS ,and Arabs...NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM.

If the secular west claim that they free slaves, ISLAM after defining all forms of slavery,shows the way and the method to end slavery.

That if you believe that slavery is abolished by the west..which is not...Slavery exist today..blessed...in global scale and in all three forms (MIND, BODY, and SPIRIT).

81.153.70.71 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• • And?

58.106.3.57 15:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Sorry for the anon, I can't log in where I am. Looking at the religion section there is a clear disparity. The section on old testiment slavery is apologetic,while the same type of material in the Quran is presented as condoning slavery. However...

exodus 20:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (just one of many many examples)

Quran 4:92 "4.92] And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise." (not actually that many references to slaves, but sufficient to quash any idea that they didn't have any.)

In both these verses we see that they both kept slaves and they both had laws regulating them. Any chance someone could fix this, assuming anyone is interested.

Hi all

I start with the qoute {Any chance someone could fix this, assuming anyone is interested?}

Yes I do...please

Now Question Slavery existed before the coming of Prophet Muhammad, ...true or false?

Answer is TRUE ...they were slaves before Prophet Muhammad but when Prophet Muhammad message arrived, Islam started to Abolish it,as it is explained by 81.153.70.71 .

Not only that but also Islam came to eradicate slavery. The STATE must eradicate slavery(for Muslims or non-muslims)as well as poverty using the Zakat Tax "alssadaqat". Verse [9:060] clearly state it as an obligation imposed by God .

Now let us talk about Verse 4:92

Then you said (not actually that many references to slaves, but sufficient to quash any idea that they didn't have any.)

Yes but please notice that.. the verse did not specify or say free the believer slave whom is owned by Muslims...okay !

Verse 4:92 talks about the "penalty measurement" when a Muslim kill his Muslim brother by mistake even if the one who was killed from non Muslims nation that has peace or in Hostility with Muslims.

The First thing a Muslim should do in this Case is to free a Believer Slave..anywhere in the world ..even in Bermuda triangle or cuba.

But he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing

The Verse talking about the penalty when a Muslim kill a Muslim by mistake ..Freeing Slaves.. Not talking..about taking slaves, beating slaves or keeping slaves

The Verse is NOT even saying.. free slaves [only] when a Muslim kill Muslim by mistake, nor it is saying that these believer slaves whom to be freed are from the ones whom owned by muslims, so to falsely accused that Islam meant to keep slaves !

Therefore your remark and I quote {In both these verses we see that they both kept slaves and they both had laws regulating them. }.......Is wrong.. coz I do NOT read in the Verse 4:92 the word... Keep slave , Take Slave, beat Slaves ,or Banana ...these are your own assumption or planted assertion not in the TEXT.

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 12:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • back again. still can't log in, but hopefully this doesn't cause too much confusion. I don't interprate the text as "take slaves, beat slaves etc" either. I am talking about whether or not the texts support the idea that their respective people had slaves. The condition of them is neither here nor there (but possibly the source of another topic). This quote, from your good self,

"Verse 24:33 ". And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you."

tells us that people who followed these scriptures had slaves. Its in the first line. I'm not going to make assumptions about what happens if the slave owner has any slaves that don't have any good in them, or what was the status of those people who didn't have the money to earn their freedom. The fact is that is tells us that they had slaves. That is all.

The Answer

They had slaves prior to the actual reviled verse.The verses instruct Muslims as to deal with the slave they "already possessed". In relation to verses quoted shows that any slave who asked or requested to be freed must be given this rights unless he /she was known to be plotting for mischief. The master not only must help him earn his freedom, but also pay him money so the slave can have a good start in his free life

{what was the status of those people who didn't have the money to earn their freedom?}

People do not buy their Freedom The State must collect Alms to free them an obligation imposed by Allah.

[9:060] The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and for those employed in connections therewith, and for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and for the freeing of slaves, and for those in debt, and for the cause of ALLAH, and for the wayfarer - an ordinance from ALLAH. And ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise.

Thus the State must collect Alms to abolish all kind of slavery (bondage, Poverty, and people in debts)- an ordinance from ALLAH.

Lord Jealous is a free Thinker86.151.155.3 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • me again. Now that actually makes sense. So what you're saying is that muslims did have slaves but islamic obligations required them to give them the option for freedom. The deed for payment mentioned in 24:33 could be used to apply for alms as covered by 9:60. I think this is the core misunderstanding between us. It is clear that some mulsims had slaves. But Islam actively discourages the keeping of slaves if you are to be considered a good man.

If you could find me a passage that expressly forbids the keeping of slaves that would be better, but for now we can't say that the quran does not allow slaves unless you can find a passage that expressly forbids the keeping of slaves. What we can say, however, is that the Quran does not condone slavery in any way, and actively encourages its people to free them wherever possible. 
What makes things difficult is that it constantly refers to believing slaves and slaves of good character as being the ones who should be freed. In no way does it suggest universal emancipation. But I will agree with your conclusion that islam does not condone the keeping of slaves.

ETA:"In Islam, the Qur'an accepts and endorses the institution of slavery" this line is demonstably false.

Hi again

Points need to be explained and not to be repeated again.

• First of all Freeing any Slave from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an “Obligation imposed by Allah himself” (Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) strongly state that in verse 9:60 , just like any other obligation duty imposed by Allah ( Fareedatn min Allah فريضة من الله ) be it.. Establishing prayer, Fasting Ramadan , and making Hajj. It does Not only forbid taking or keeping slaves,but also by NOT freeing them is a SIN that defy Allah’s commandment.

That verse alone abolished and forbidden slavery, as well as abolishing other kind slavery be it poverty and debt which enslaves most of mankind today.

• Why they had to know any good in them before freeing them in verse 24:33 ? In the past (before Islam) some Slaves were captured from wars. They were war combatants’ captives (Asrra) been taken as slaves. Therefore to prevent them from plotting for mischief or to take revenge or harm his capturer the State itself then would take the obligation of freeing him instead of the Owner. Coz they are included in verse 9:60 as being labeled as “a salve” . Notice also that 24:33 did not even say to keep them if they show hostility.

• Verse 24:33 talk about freeing slaves on individual bases, while verse 9:60 talk about Freeing slave in a Universal level, which is done by the STATE that collect the Tax (Alms) for many purposes one of them is to free slaves regardless their Faith, race, Colour, and how been captured, plus it consider also that poverty and dept are equal to slavery needed to be abolished.

THIS ISSUES ALONGSIDE OTHER MISCONCEPTINS HELD ABOUT ISLAM IS BEING FULLY ADDRESSED IN A BOOK, HIGHLITING THE QURAN SUPERLATIVE STANDARDS. FOR THIS REASON I CAN NOT GO IN TO ANY FURTHER LINGUSTIC OR TECHNICAL DETAILS ON THE ISSUE.

In Nutshell

Verse 9:60 puts an end to slavery in general which is an obligation responsibility for the Muslim STATE to do. Just by NOT Freeing Slave, let alone keeping them is a SIN against Allah’s commandment.

Lord jealous is a free thinker.86.151.155.3 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • "In Islam, the Qur'an accepts and endorses the institution of slavery" Clearlly this is not true. A simple look at the Qu'ran reveals this. Quite how this passage has remained in the article I don't know.

Whether or not any slaves were kept, in terms of referencing is a bit more difficult. There are sources that claim that muslims did have slaves. Find a better reference to say they didn't and the problem goes away.
In the meantime, I am personally happy to accept that the freeing of slaves is a requirement by the alms. Forget all the other stuff you said, this bit: "Freeing any Slave from the Alms is not a matter of Choice or an option it is an “Obligation imposed by Allah himself” (Fareedatn min Allah  فريضة من الله  )" is all I need. To be entered into the article it would ideally need a reference of some sort. 
As I said, I can't log in and this is a protected article. I'm really sorry, but this means I can't make the changes. No one else has offered an opinion on this discussion. I'd imagine that may change if the article is edited, but then they can explain why they feel the Qu'ran endorses slavery here. So if you believe in this so strongly, what are you doing about it?

Religion and Slavery

It is incorrect to write "The position of Cristian churches became firmly anti-slavery only in the 1800s", we don't forget the papal bull of Pope Eugene IV, enacted in January 13, 1435, at Florence, called "Sicut Dudum" about the enslaving by Spanish slave trader of black natives from the Canary Islands. The Pope wrote: ".... These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money"... But the Spanish didn't listen the Pope and asserted that the black natives weren't men but a sort of animals. Luiclemens 22:30, 14 April 2007

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." -Ephesians 6:5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novjunulo (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

".... These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money"

It will be better if the Pope Eugene IV, consolidate this noble phrase with a Biblical text.

It must have Signature in the bible ,since the bible is the highest authority because it is the WORD of GOD,other wise his speech has no bases. Why then not to take the word of his holiness the Dalai Lama instead?, because it is not from the bible?

please find out if Pope Eugene IV did !

Thanx

Ferju 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Dear Ferju, the papal bull Sicut Dudum is an historical document promulgated by Pope Eugene IV 57 years before of American discovery. If you want, go to read the papal bull in english where you can find the condemn of slavery!

Luiclemens 12:00 15 April 2007

Hi

Dear Luiclemens I do believe Sicut Dudum exist I am not doubting that, what I say is that it's better if he quoted what he believed from a “Holy biblical text” because Bible can not be changed.

please find out if the Pope Eugene IV did bringSicut Dudum teachings from a "Holy biblical text", not just things been said out by himself that reflect only his own point oview or Opinion and not based from the Bible, and with proof please.

Thanx.

Ferju 11:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal forced labor

There is one form of legal forced labor that I did not see in this article: That of a parent and a child. It is one of the less thought-about exceptions, but when you think about it, there's really no reason NOT to call it forced labor. Parents can't order their children to do anything illegal, but that's about as far as it goes. When parents order their children to do something legal, that has the force of law. Do the children get any say in what their parents order them to do? No. They have to do it, or face consequences, and if they don't comply with said consequences (such as being grounded), their parents can send them to juvenile detention. So when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, a child's relationship to their parents is that of foced labor.

I move for someone who can edit this article to put that in. You know I'm right; don't tell me I'm not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.236.13 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy forbidding original research. Perhaps you should provide a Reputable source. njaard 04:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed European to Atlantic slave trade

The old title was misleading in various ways: The usual name for the slave trade in question is Atlantic slave trade. European could also refer to the capturing and trading of Slavic people by mostly Germanic people in the Middle Ages, as well as to Ancient Greek and Roman slavery. Malc82 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rubber boom

The following statement shouldn't be in the Atlantic (formerly European) slave trade section, but doesn't really fit elsewhere. Does anybody have a suggestion where to put it?

During the period from late 19th and early 20th centuries, demand for the labor-intensive harvesting of rubber drove frontier expansion and slavery in both Latin America and Africa. The personal monarchy of Belgian King Leopold II in the Congo Free State saw mass killings and slavery to extract rubber (Adam Hochschild, King Leopold's Ghost). Meanwhile, indigenous people were enslaved as part of the rubber boom in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, and Brazil (Michael Edward Stanfield , Red Rubber, Bleeding Trees: Violence, Slavery, and Empire in Northwest Amazonia, 1850-1933). In Central America, rubber tappers participated in the enslavement of the indigenous Guatuso-Maleku people for domestic service (Mark Edelman, "A Central American Genocide: Rubber, Slavery, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Guatusos-Malekus," Comparative Studies in Society and History (1998), 40: 356-390.). Malc82 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of known slaves

There is a list of slaves in this article. It should be merged with the List of known slaves. Sarcelles 11:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please allow a link to be added to my new educational (non commercial) site, www.slaverysite.com . The scope of my site is the Atlantic Slave Trade and Slavery in America. As time goes by I may wish to contribute content to the page on my specific topics, however I'm not familiar with how I can do this on a protected page. Thank you.

This page is only semiprotected; no administrator assistance is required. CMummert · talk 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous Films

I think will be good to ad A Escrava Isaura in the list of Famous Films of Slavery. This can be called the only series en Latin America to include directly the slavery.

Who is "Alexander"?

Footnotes 8 and 9 refer to "Alexander, 49" and "Alexander, 50". But there is no work listed as by an "Alexander" in the reference section. In fact, the word "Alexander" isn't mentioned at all outside these two footnotes. This needs urgent fixing. 81.159.58.43 22:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in China?

I think someone with an account might want to create a slavery in China article. I'm mainly saying this because I just found this article, and I seem to recall a lot of stories of slavery in China in modern times. However, it would be nice to have an article on the subject that can more properly separate fact from fiction.--58.110.246.243 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a statistical outlier, no need to include it unless you want to make page for Latino or Asian sex slaves in America, Europe and Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.62.146 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Substinance isn't a word

Last word under the Etymology section. I think you want either sustenance or subsistence. 202.248.254.113 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Irish

Why does this page not cover the Black Irish role in pre-African slavery in the Carribean? 70.5.85.136 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the color of a person's hair is irrelevant to the topic? If you mean the oftenly-Irish indentured servants, look at that article, indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. Malc82 20:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit by Mentorsmentor

The following edit was made at the article page. I've copied it here, as it didn't belong there.

Contemporary slavery

Mentorsmentor It is perhaps worth considering the proposition that unless slavery (e.g., see the definition, above, of "chattel-slavery") is enforceable by the putative "owner" within the law of the land and the jurisdiction of the land upholds that condition, then slavery is not lawful within that land and therefore does not exist, whatever the forces that may from time to time create a resemblance of slavery. The test must be that the putative "owner" or his lawful agent prevents (by force or threat of force or the equivalent) the alleged slave from leaving the alleged condition of enslavement. The bondage as perceived by the bound person must be real. 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Mentorsmentor If this proposition is upheld there may be some organizations collecting money from charitable donors in respect of a condition they are not describing honestly.Mentorsmentor

Malc82 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for Slavery?

What are they arguments used for and against slavery? I'm kinda wondering how anti-abolitionists supported their beliefs, and I haven't seen it anywhere else on Wikipedia. It seems like something worthy of addition. 66.8.155.108 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments will depend upon the specific implementation. For example, the arguments used in ancient Rome will differ from those used in the American south. As a result, it may not be practical to include such a discussion in this particular article. Rklawton 12:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True. Maybe it could have its own page then. 66.8.155.108 18:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I HATE slavery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.67.231 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture verification

Please modify caption of Ivanow painting. This is highly Romanticised, fictional depiction of slave market and early Rus. Many readers could mistake it for realistic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.18.166.63 (talk) 14:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Overall looks good. However, it needs significantly more sources, as the "History of abolitionism" section lacks sources altogether. Also, I would like to see the "Religion and slavery" section containing a little more info, even though there is a link to the main article. Not much, just a little more info needs to be added so that it includes all major aspects and covers them fully. Can't wait to see it finished. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

…D.G.DeL-Dorchester/Review and status of the term Slave. 9:11a.m. 9-10-2007 by David george DeLancey Request protection...Reason/mbralchenko 19:44,31 janurary 2007 (utc) Out-of-Context info in lead...Janjellyrole 21:39, Jan 2007 (utc) Individual Rights...Goldfritha 23:53,11 feburary 2007(utc) Overemphasis on America(USA)slavery...Chiss Boy 01:50,21 march 2007(utc) Um.....Coll...Kp Botany 21:47, 25 march 2007(utc) Roman Inconsistancy?...Property_-=D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass/-? to 71.197.106.123 00:29,28,april 2007(utc) Dubrovnik first to outlaw slavery...Remrence to "the terming of" D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass/- Sounder...MJF fiorello 10:03,31 may 2007(utc)DefinetlyD.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass and?...15:38,13 april 2007(utc) Black Irish...malc82 20:53,7July 2007(utc)"Hang On" D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass oops#1>70.5.85.136 20:25,7 july 2007(utc) Continueing the Terming of Slavery,a short refrence by David George DeLancey,Slavery does infact go back a long time the esence of slavery is perhaps adaption to and or a guidence within, for instence in my mind i am inslaved to finish the theory though untill it is done it then may be in refrence to the same terming slavery for if i then have a cultural idea and nead to share it within a taskable effort then it may continue to be an inslaved matter words are important if one was to cut oneself short of a terming "wich "may be involved in a or within a Matter then the proceedure would then have to be cultivated again and then this is where a higher power or will may be conducted, a soldier infact may be in currious of being a slave and, or, to,something what comes after someting is an understanding ,now there is a biding tenure, what should come before the biding tenure is realizing a biding tenure, if one was to travel to a place then set thy self about it, this individual would then be a free person wich had raomed within a place a tenure is a tenure though the belonging of it still exsists this is realized as a freedom within tenures and or just tenure without the "a" before it for it is not singular, though there is a singular effect about a place wich conceals a tenure this is the matter of apropreation those whom are about a place have there need into effect as when now possibly a possition for granting may not be quite available -a tenure- so by allowing one to stay within or 'excepting<word is important| to stay the matter would perhaps become a slaved /lets say tenure Slaved could mean different understanding for instence,that was one and set back,hostile posibly wate or presume to, a tight situation from ability wich holds a process, well i hope that was some what understanding for now that i am done the terming usage would be so now i am done with my slaved accurance meaning the end of this paregraph and posible understanding, wich in fact leaves about the same untill completly satisfied perhaps i will still be slightly David George DeLancey 10:22 A.M.E.S.T. David George DeLancey 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a head's up. You have 5 days till I will close. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to fail it. Not suitable to be a WP:GA in this condition. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

…I David George DeLancey am quite content with that -ofcourse it does not meet the satisfactory alighnment of a good cattegory i was just noteing something from the straight of my thought and realize sometimes my penmanship is not organized to the best of , as for instence the term penmanship i thought at first darn it that it had an i and then an e and then yes ofcourse i had to head over to the Dictionary and perhaps new all-along that is was truely an A oops a, well till next time Thanks or thank you to be more respected to help another needed keeper you aught to understand thanks just cuts it to Short kind of like To Help Another Needed Keepers Slavery MINE> 10:50 A.M. E.S.T. David George DeLancey/*David George DeLancey 14:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)/*David George DeLancey 14:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

other Language

Please add Farsi fa:برده‌داری —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.6.73 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion and slavery

I am surprised to see this summary section to be so lacking in any and all aspects. Also of decontextualising two minor verses of the Bible.

Mosaic Law clearly states in Exodus 21:16 - "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." To steal a man is evident enough connection to slavery. So thus prohibiting the kidnapping and selling of slaves.

Next we look at Genesis 1:26-28 and Galatians 3:28 where it says that God gave dominion over the rest of creation, and equality of human beings in nature - not one over another.

Further scripture in evidence - 1 Timothy 1:10 shows slave traders (also called menstealers) as being on the same line as adulterers, murderers and liars. 1 Corinthians 7:21 - Tells slaves to become free if they can. Letter to Philemon (Philemon) is devoted to convincing Philemon to free his escaped slave Onesimus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.199.113 (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

An overgeneralisation

Another observation is slavery is more common when the labor done is relatively simple and thus easy to supervise, such as large scale growing of a single crop. It is much more difficult and costly to check that slaves are doing their best and with good quality when they are doing complex tasks. Thus, slavery tends to decrease with technological advancements requiring more skilled people, even as they are able to demand high wages."

In Islam, and particularly in Central Asia, that simple type of work could be extracted from an oppressed peasantry, e.g. Tadjiks, and slaves actually were for more specialised labour - concubines, eunuchs, soldiers, artisans etc. (see "A Person from England" by Fitzroy Maclean, which mentions a captive Italian clockmaker). It was the custom for children of wealthy parents to be taught a skill so that if they were ver captured they would be kept rather than slaughtered. Anyhow, the overgeneralisation means that the conclusion is wrong. 203.221.31.19 09:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) P.M.Lawrence