Talk:Slavery/Archive 3

Slavery and Religion

I've removed the text until a more balanced summary can be written. I don't think Louis W. Cable is a published author or anything other than he runs an anti-religion website. If his say is on there, I might as well just quote something from J.P. Holding from Tektonics to combat it. It would also need to mention the laws protecting slaves in the OT if it were to be fair. Also, how is Winston Churchill's opinion important regarding Islamic slavery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.66.130 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that AhhgggggggggggLL slave pictures contain only muslims as slave masters, as do the "atrocities" pictures. Islam does indeed allow (and thus prohibits the outlawing of) slave trad, including sex slave, and trade in sex slaves. However in the religion section, it is not mentioned.

Can a section on islamic slave trade be opened and address the issue that sharia allows slave trade, and many countries do not accept outlawing a practice that sharia allows ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.182.219.142 (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The article notes that most Islamic nations have outlawed slavery. Unfortunately for most of these countries, they are not democratic. So while their "constitution" or whatever says one thing, they wink at the practice. This is fairly typical of a non-democratic society and needs documenting along with the probably true statement that it is "officially" outlawed. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my my my, what a sorry misinformed article this is. I know you westerners despise the Muslims but do you really need to whitewash your on history to make yourselves look better? Does this article need to be so heavily imbalanced and biased against Muslims and Islam, whilst at the same time washing the guilt off Judeo-Christian hands? I'm going to make some changes, edit some areas with unverified claims, if it isn't verified it's getting deleted and adding in a few revisions of my own. most that white people are ignorant

89.167.221.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

Images

A good gallery of related images can be found at gilderlehrman.org/collection/online/wilberforce/, if anyone would like some images to add. Many of them are old and so may have expired copyrights.

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass position of wikipedia user talk and most perferably the sandbox wich i'lltry not to forget of that usage since most of my paregraphical ventures are of well ventures.

Noah lived for 500 and something years at age of 350 the water came ,it took 120years to build the arc or subsquential quarters of servival the many words spoken reflect in the knowledge of a building formation to conduct a matter of well frofound water ways question and to be studied.

Though noah was an inventer of acholhol he also drank of it ,colaberating about himself only he would know or then perhaps how many are then around and when does one become foolish with the qualities of sharing matter with another others are one thing though other can be of a remembrence of others attidude and discovery, though a place perhaps of little travel though was recommended still they stayed within a boundery married each other in share od device and cultural setting, one must still refrane from the temtations though what in some cases is a temtation, strength and the ability is perhaps more so then, then weakness of curiousity though still a living quarter achievement.

So Noah drank and lay naked in his tent or place of relaxation and then one of his sons enters and covers the being though perhaps not until one had enterd and not and then there were the other son and or sons whomm stayed within the distance though did not accure of it knowing though may have been the matter.

So when Noah awoke he spelled the vertue upon the son that coverd him that he would now be his slave for this measure and perhaps slave meant what of another matter as well though by now being confined in inosence he would not travel to egypt for more then what could be achieved of wher they were jeruselam then the sin would be collected perhaps in it's equaty and returned as to now keep within.

Another matter could of happened years before in conduct of cold weather a family freezes and some are still through time experience enough to bear the weather in wich they are about. The measure is collected when the individual see's of how the trees are of stature and the branches though are in multible quickly then the individual notices the opened erea of the waters and knows now what can be done,the adjustment of the trees are gatherd and the building of togetherness is to be established before the setting appeal the one notices the droping of the trees upon a rough standard a rock it is or a different boulder then notices if shortened an atached it would then serve purpose of cutting the other way a lever of measure and all this through time is collected and noticed and remembered an idol or something because in order for it to continue or finish to start again it would have to be available.

So years pass and travel is at hand for capture on about some other methoding idea ,the stregnth about curriousity will never change though while in this method time again passes and perhaps for longer periods ,so now one would have to be about the culture of the termoil and exsistance and know how of all of this wich then is now pertasining to a slaved issue one that bares or bears.till next time4:02 p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

POV?

This entire article seems to have a strong anti-slavery POV. I think it should be fixed to be more wp:NPOV. Novjunulo (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering that. There were a (few) advanatges- in very ancient times, you only had the choice between enslaving the losers or massacring them. 87.113.85.189 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that as soon as you open this page, you are faced with Abolitionist propaganda. Compare that to the abortion article. Novjunulo (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a universial view nowadays that slavery was wrong. If you can find one person that thinks slavery wasn't at all inhumane, then we'll talk. 163.153.113.5 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends which slavery you're talking about. If you're talking about slavery under the muslims, e.g. the ottoman empire, that certainly was immoral and inhumane. If you're talking about slavery under the Roman republic, that was a lot more humane, and got only slightly worse under the empire. Slaves got better educated than the average patricier under the Roman republic. If you're talking about the slavery in western Europe after the fall of the Roman empire, the "lijfeigenen", their life was probably preferable to living "free" in that age, again compared to what the muslims did, in turkey, arabia or zanzibar, that life was heaven on earth : safety, food, "education" (certainly not compareable to today's but then, that wasn't possible), all were provided for. Christianity frowned VERY hard on inhumane treatment of servants, and fought a few wars over it. As another example, slave life on the American plantations was a LOT better (even if not equal to non-slave life) than the life of that same slave in the arab slave trade that brought them to the plantations. There are many gradations in slavery, and a distinction should be made.

It can be argued that slavery under the Roman republic was no worse than what is referred to as "wage slaving", which we probably most (if not all) do. Slavery covers a lot of different law systems, from Roman lex to sharia. They obviously are different, and this should be illustrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.182.219.142 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

POV? Abolitionist propaganda? You may as well say that the article on the solar system lacks a pro-geocentrist viewpoint! Slavery is incompatible with universal views on human rights as defined by the united nations and has been outlawed around the world for over a century. There are no significant organisations whether academic, political or otherwise that promote slavery. Abolitionism is a historical change that has occurred naturally with modernisation and progress in history, analogous to the rise of the merchant class at the end of the middle ages. I'd also like to add that any pro slavery arguments would either be ones that exist because of abolitionism and are both outdated and universally seen as wrong or original research, since there would be a lack of suitable sources to cite. --I (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

citation for female slavery section

I that this section needs to have a citation; else it should be removed. It's a very small section of the article and doesn't do much to add to the informational quality of the article. Also, I think that it's a bit biased, because while I am pretty sure that there was a female slave trade in several parts of the world, the article only mentions a slave trade in the Middle East. A section on female slavery is only useful if it details the history of the female slave trade in all parts of the world -- not just the Middle East. This article is about slavery globally; not just in the Middle East. Otherwise it just seems as if someone is try to emphasize stereotypes, i.e. Arabs being evil, women-hating chauvinists. Thanks. --User:Enaam (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

criticism of contemporary slavery needs a reference

while the contemporary slavery section mentions that the definition of slavery has critics, it doesnt attribute a source, and after looking on the web for 3 hours I havent been able to find one outside of wikipedia. A source should be provided or the phrase should be removed. 08:30, 24 april 2007 (gmt)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.130.87 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

So-called contemporary slavery

This section does not really relate to slavery, as it does to unfree labor. What is being discussed does not fit with the traditional definition of slavery, which is what is being discussed here. Dullfig 20:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the proposal to merge the section with Unfree labor. Why not shorten the section, point out that it relates only to a broad definition of slavery, and head the section with a link to "main article Unfree labor". I'd also like to point out that "slavery" is a complex concept and is not going to respond to easy definitions. Also that a priority for the article would seem to be better sourcing. That is the best way to nip potential POV problems in the bud.Itsmejudith 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another idea is to simply add Unfree labor to the Slavery disambiguation page. Nina Odell 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we eliminate the word "virtual" & change the entire sentence because it is real slavery of children & should say so: "There are millions of people throughout the world — mainly children — in conditions of virtual slavery, as well as in various forms of servitude which are in many respects similar to slavery." Sundiiiiii 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

May I add this article in 'External Links' about slavery today from National Geographic? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/index.html Sundiii (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

May I also add the movie/book The Grapes of Wrath and the movie Salt of the Earth? Also the books "Capitalism and Slavery", The War Against Women, "Woman, Child for Sale", When Corporations Rule the World, Firestone Liberian controversy, & Disposable People which all show slavery today? Sundiii (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Slave/Enslaved Grandmother Syndrome is a today adult woman illness because too much family stress —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioguijarrom (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Were Slaves Immigrants

Is it possible or even appropriate to add a section to this article that discusses the recent trend to clump slaves in the same category of immigrants? Maybe a detailed definition of the two (slaves/slavery and immigrant/immigration) can be provided.--Lovejesus1st (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Human Trafficking

How about a redirect from “Human Trafficking”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.146.68 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More Information................................

The orgin of the word slave also sould be on this page.

Slavery is a sin as stated in the Ten Commandments "You shall not steal" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.32.176 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume your referring to stealing a person's freedom. I don't think the 10 Commandments are meant that way, otherwise taking a fish from the water would be deemed stealing (from nature). Plus there is the part in the Religion and slavery section, that argues Slavery was condoned by the Bible. Tydamann (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Johnny

What does the first part (Slavery allows Mr. Matson to call John "Johnny.") mean? I don't understand how that is...important/true or anything. Is it just some random vandalism? Tydamann (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume it was random vandalism because it's gone now. Tydamann (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

abolitionism

It could be interessant to write that the first abolition of slavery, was in 1794 in France, in the wake of french revolution, decided by the national assembly. Trade and slavery were prohibited. People were declared free and equal, called "citoyen".  Alas Bonaparte in 1802, restarted slavery in 2 french colonies (Guadeloupe and Guyane). (He wasn't perfect). 77.204.67.172 (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Jm 25/05/2008

Article length

I think there should be a bit less history in this article as well as less historic literature mentioned. Sarcelles (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Near the top of the history section it says:

most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents, or by themselves, as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved

Both of these things cannot be true at the same time. Which is it? Were most born in, or were most captured in wars and raids?(67.85.178.24 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)) hey wat is up i like doing this!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.57 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

where is slavery still practiced?

"Although outlawed in nearly all countries today, slavery is still practiced in some parts of the world."

I cant understand why it says 'some' and not 'many'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although it should say "in all countries" because wage slavery is also slavery. 69.228.218.118 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Child Labour

May I add a link to Child Labour in this article? 69.228.218.118 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

I think there should be more modern images. Particularly the first image looks like a history lesson rather than a current topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Discontinuity in the history

This article mentions that in the West slavery ended during the medieval period and resumed in the Renaissance. This seems pretty inadequate. It would be nice if the dots were connect between slavery in the ancient world and the most recent forms of it. Exactly when and why did it end during medieval times? What are the details of its resumption? --Ericjs (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As the article covers many millenia of slavery and hundreds of cultures, it comes across as a bit superficial. It is too large for me to organize (re-organize). But some thought should probably be given to it and sectins forked.

For a petty example, nearly everyone concurs that the city slaves of ancient Rome had it pretty good. Yes, they lived in slavery. But they got their 3 meals a day and for many, lots of time off. A Roman peasant should have had it so good!

Burckardt (The Age of Constantine the Great) says, "In point of fact the treatment of slaves by most pagans was not bad." I believe he was intending to make a statement about Mediterranean culture slavery in that rough time period of centuries.Student7 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added considerable information about slavery in the medieval period in europe, so my comment is no longer relevant. Though Student7's comment about the need for organization still seems to apply. --Ericjs (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all?

I quote from the article: "Slavery is outlawed in nearly all countries". This implies that their are a small number of countries where slavery is legal. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.7 (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The economics of slavery?

A sentence suggests that low price means that slavery is good economics. I think the reverse. While it could mean oversupply of slaves, it also could mean poor demand meaning that the "end users" are not seeing the benefits of slavery that the editor is suggesting. Low prices should discourage the "wholesalers" who do the actual enslaving. This needs a bit more detail as well as footnoting. Sounds a bit top of the head to me. Student7 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

whole article sucks. Solenodon (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out Alexis de Toqueville's analysis of the economies north and south of the Ohio River in his book Democracy in America. He gives a fantastic illustration of how the non-slave economy outperforms the slave economy. SkyDot (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ottoman empire

Could someone add a link to slavery (Ottoman Empire)J8079s (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I added it on History of Slavery [[1]]--Larno (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We need the Peter Stefanowski act from russia in slavery of georgia (Greatest amount of slavery in one country)-http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/29/zakari.georgia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbuttsowhat330 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Bales

Please add a link for Kevin Bales in this article. Thank you. Wikiamante (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Films

Please add the movie Trade, released in 2007, to the list of related films on this page. Thank you. Wikiamante (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

Under Slavery Today, please add the following book: Bales, Kevin, Ending Slavery, 2007, University of California Press ISBN 978-0-520-25470-1. Thank you. Wikiamante (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A. Guijarro Morales. El Síndrome de la Abuela Esclava. Pandemia del Siglo XXI (The Enslaved Grandmother Syndrome: a XXI Century Pandemic). Grupo Editorial Universitario. Granada, oct 2001. ISBN 978-84-8491-124-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioguijarrom (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

organization

currently i think it looks a bit off. the current status should be at the bottom. Etymology on top, and the various chronological histories following.

Perhaps: 1 Etymology 2 Definitions 2.1 Other uses of the term 3 History 3.1 In ancient societies 3.2 Child slavery 3.3 Slave work 3.4 Western slavery 3.5 Human trafficking 3.6 History of abolitionism 3.6.1 Abolitionist movements 4 Religion and slavery 5 Economics 6 Apologies 6.1 Reparations 7 Current situation / Contemporary slavery Lihaas (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This claim may be true, but individual sections need to be labeled. Labeling the entire article seems a bit much to me. The article has quite a few footnotes. If the footnotes are off or are themselves OR, they definitely need to be checked. I wish the editor who placed this label would be a little more specific in his/her criticism. Discussing objections here would help. Otherwise the label is not useful IMO.Student7 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

point taken, go ahead and remove it. section should be tagged. Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.229.77 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi, I have done some cleanup (including removing some unref stuff). I have also restructured the article. The history section is new (sum of main article). Still needs work though, but I hope its an improvement.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Imminent Ecowas case

I'd like to add the Mani case being heard by the Ecowas Court of Justice at present, with this reference. How do I do this on a locked page, anyone?Red Hurley (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work anyway.Red Hurley (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

spelling

This article uses variously "labor" and "labour". These should be made consistent; I don't have a view on which it should be, but the mixture is messy. — Alan^✉ 20:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanted EDITS and Additional Material needing to be added

Italicised sections are my own personal opinions and should be omitted, the rest is fully referenced and sourced as appropriate.

In this section I am outlining some sections that I wish to see removed and reasons why and also additional detail that needs to be added. Since the article is locked there is no way for me to manually edit it. Looks to me as if the article is heavily western and Christian biased, but then again that's no surprise coming from a Wiki piece.

Firstly in the Religion and Slavery section I think the following on Christianity should be added:

Christianity "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America 1,2

Sources: 1. Dunbar Rowland quoting Jefferson Davis, in "Jefferson Davis," Volume 1, Page 286 2.Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66. Available at: http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~hoemann/jdinaug.html

The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery was based on the "curse of Ham" which appears in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in Genesis 9:25-27.

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem."

"This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument--rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science -- why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another." 1

But in ancient times, cursing a whole race into slavery was considered acceptable because it was in the Bible. The American slave owner felt that he was carrying out God's plan by buying and using slaves.

Christians at the time believed that Canaan had settled in Africa and that his descendents had become black.

Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus' ministry, the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) does not record his opinion of it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Bible. It was accepted as a natural part of life by almost all Christians until the 19th century CE.

Anabaptists started to criticize slavery in the late 17th century. They were joined by Quakers and Mennonites. It was only when John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of the Methodist movement, became concerned about slavery that the small protest became a mass movement for the abolition of slavery.

Slavery is still advocated in North America by some Reconstructionist Christians and a few racist fringe groups within the Christian Identity movement.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

1.Anthony Pagden, "The Slave Trade, Review of Hugh Thomas' Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade," The New Republic, 1997-DEC-22, as quoted in Ref. 21.

Quotations from the Bible

Correct and absolute references to the Bible on the use and proliferation of slavery. "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them."1

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."2

Sources: 1.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-5&version=31; 2.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:9&version=31

Judaism Slavery was sanctioned and carefully regulated by many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) largely in the Pentateuch - its first 5 books. Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus' ministry, he is not recorded as having expressed any opinion on it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). The authors appeared to accept slavery as a natural condition -- as a universal institution that was not particularly immoral.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

Islam Many times throughout the Quran and Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad it states quite clearly that slavery is wrong, that it is an injustice upon man, and except for absolute extreme circumstances, only during times of war, but as a general rule it does not nor has condoned slavery, in fact very much the opposite. Now whatever the individual, religious, secular, corrupt, good, bad or otherwise has done, the sin is on them and not on the religion.

"And what will explain to thee the path that is steep? (It is:) freeing the bondman;" Quran, 90:12-13.

A direct reference to freeing of a slave which is the path of righteousness.

"The offerings given for the sake of God are [meant] only for the poor and the needy, and those who are in charge thereof, and those whose hearts are to be won over, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage, and [for] those who are over burdened with debts, and [for every struggle] in God's cause, and [for] the wayfarer: [this is] an ordinance from God - and God is all-knowing, wise." Quran: 9:60

Again a direct reference by God to free those who are in bondage, bodily and economically. There are many exact references in the Quran to the above one which mention the freeing of slaves, but that alone should suffice. In fact out of the three Abrahamic religions only the Quran survives today with any direct mention of freeing slaves directly, as an act of righteousness and yet it is the one that is arguably most condemned for slavery when it quite clearly condemns it.

Speech of the second Caliph of the Islam Khalifate, companion of the Prophet, Umar:

Caliph `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said in a famous khutbah (speech or sermon) of his, “When did you make the people as slaves or servants of you while Allah, the Almighty, created them free!”

On reference to the Mamelukes of Egypt: "Furthermore, Muslims were encouraged to manumit slaves as an act of worship. And if all that is not enough to demonstrate the differences between slavery in Islam and elsewhere, remember that the Mamelukes who ruled Egypt for nearly 300 years were slaves who legally belonged to the Islamic state."1

Sources: 1.Ahmad ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, pp. 458-59 Now I'm not saying that the Bible, Torah or Quran or their fundamental religious beliefs advocated slavery, because mostly those who used the religious sources to claim such beliefs did so with a warped understanding of what they were reading. But nevertheless time and time again, I come across articles and complete rubbish that is so biased against Islam, simple misunderstandings that a quick google search could put straight that it boggles the mind. Yes there is a propaganda war out there, and the western nations and many people are obligingly obedient when it comes to misinformation passed off as truth, but a certain balance in proceedings would be nice. So before you slam another religion for that which you could lambast at your own read from your own Book and understand:

‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)" 89.167.221.3 (talk)

while I agree that this article needs work I would like to point out to you that the following four articles exist on wikipedia: Christianity and slavery Islam and slavery Judaism and slavery The Bible and slavery. They are linked from the slavery template. As the "to do list" states, this article could do with a summary section on "religion and slavery", more detailed stuff should go into the specific articles.--SasiSasi (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is enforced labour to pay off incurred debt considered slavery?

In my opinion, no, it's not, although it's close. The difference here is that the debtor was not sought out and captured by the creditor, and the creditor would be applying the labour to pay off the debt. Given the lack of the former, and having no data for nor against the latter, were the ancient egyptians slavers?

---

Must I rip off another leg of yours, O Isreal?

Ethymology

The part about the common origin of the words „Slavs“ and „slaves“ really need more references. There are some, but it still need some trustful references about this words have really something to do with each other. I have never heard it before. --Zik2 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I found something about it, so I can change it, but it still needs sources. --KosovoJeSrbsko (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies from Africa

Since the article is locked (Wikipedia: anyone can edit it, lol), maybe someone would like to be NPOV and edit it to note that several European countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece mainly) were the target of African raids well into the XVIII century wich resulted in europeans being made slaves in Africa and no apology or regret has been made by any african country.

--84.126.10.233 (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to improve sources

Hot links to external sources are not WP:RS. This article needs reliable sources, or will be nominated for deletion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

add "masters are also slaves"?

See #3 Carl Schurz who says that masters are also slaves: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASownership.htm Stars4change (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but I would say not, unless alongside other expert opinionators (I'm presuming expert qualifications for Carl Schurz here—what do I know?) having similar academic weight. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You can take a slave out of the field, send him to college and put him in an office, but he is still a slave. Because he doesn't OWN the company. Only when all people on earth own all things on earth, every stick, stone & pebble, then we will have ended slavery. Stars4change (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Defination - lead

I think the lead and the definition section (I thought that was what the lead was for) should begin with the traditional definition of slavery as connoting the ownership of one person by another. While it is sometimes used - in more recent time - to describe things which would previously have counted as servitude or serfdom, this is the origin of the term.

The following quote from a recent (2005) decision of the European Court of Human Rights explains my reasoning:

"The Court notes at the outset that, according to the 1927 Slavery Convention, 'slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised'.

It notes that this definition corresponds to the 'classic' meaning of slavery as it was practised for centuries. Although the applicant was, in the instant case, clearly deprived of her personal autonomy, the evidence does not suggest that she was held in slavery in the proper sense, in other words that Mr and Mrs B. exercised a genuine right of legal ownership over her, thus reducing her to the status of an 'object'." (Siliadin v. France para. 122.)

— Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The refs needed tag.

Since there appear to be enough sources and there doesn't appear to be anything on the talk I am going to remove the tag.--Adam in MO Talk 19:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Abolitionism

Article says: "Abolitionism should be distinguished from efforts to help a particular group of slaves, or to restrict one practice, such as the slave trade."
The well-respected American Heritage Dictionary defines "abolitionism" as "Advocacy of the abolition of slavery" and "abolition" as "1. The act of doing away with or the state of being done away with; annulment. 2. Abolishment of slavery." - http://www.bartleby.com/61/93/A0019300.html -
In other words, it is apparently not the case that "Abolitionism should be distinguished from efforts to help a particular group of slaves, or to restrict one practice, such as the slave trade."
I think that Wikipedia should have an article on the specific abolitionist movement in western Europe and the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries, and a separate article on abolitionism as a general concept and in other times and places. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken. Abolitionsim as defined as efforts to abolish the whole practice of slavery. On the other hand, I have to notice that the phrase is unreferenced and may be dubious or poorly phrased, since "to help a particular group of slaves", such as Underground Railroad was among the efforts of abolitionists. Therefore I am deleting this phrase, especially there is the whole "abolitionism article" for details. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you say that I'm mistaken. Do you mean that the American Heritage Dictionary is mistaken? As far as I can tell, the delete that you made was one that I was suggesting.
AFAIK, I am not mistaken in suggesting that Wikipedia should have an article on Abolitionism in general, and another on the abolitionist movement in western Europe and the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin word Sclav, English word Slave, and Slavic word Slav

There is systematical misuse of false similarity between Slavic word "slav" and Latin word "sclav", what means slave. The English word "slave" itself is deceptive. It is obviously originated from Latin "sclav". Slavic word "slav" is relative to Slavic words "slovo" = word, "slava" = glory, and "sloboda" = freedom. Romans never studies Slavic languages, neither they ever conquered Slavic tribes. So the relation between "slav" and "sclav" is excluded. Obviously, the sources, which propagate the false equality Slav = Sclav, have political aims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.225.100 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The most common Latin word for slave is servus though sclavus aparently was used as well. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to do our own analysis, we are only supposed to report what "reliable sources" say. For the record, here is what the Oxford English Dictionary says:

"[ad. OF. esclave (also mod.F.), sometimes fem. corresponding to the masc. esclaf, esclas (pl. esclaz, esclauz, esclos, etc.), = Prov. esclau masc., esclava fem., Sp. esclavo, -va, Pg. escravo, -va, It. schiavo, -va, med.L. sclavus, sclava, identical with the racial name Sclavus (see SLAV), the Slavonic population in parts of central Europe having been reduced to a servile condition by conquest; the transferred sense is clearly evidenced in documents of the 9th century. The form with initial scl- is also represented by older G. schlav(e, sclav(e, G. sklave. In English the reduction of scl- to sl- is normal, and the other Teut. languages show corresponding forms, as WFris. slaef, NFris. slaaw, MDu. slave, slaef (Du. slaaf), MLG. and LG. slave (hence Da. and Norw. slave), older G. slaf(e, Sw. slaf). The history of the words representing slave and Slav in late Gr., med.L., and G., is very fully traced in Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch s.v. Sklave.] "

Astarabadi (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Globalise tag

I have added the globalise tag because, although the bias towards an emphasis on the Atlantic slave trade is not as bad as I feared it might be before I visited the article, it is still very apparent. Asia only gets a few lines - and most likely the majority of all the slaves in history were Asian (as were the majority of all the free people who have ever lived). Wimstead (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting this article featured

How much work would it need to get this article featured? Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The End of Work

I'm adding a link to "The End of Work" because it shows why we must end the wage system (Capitalism) & the future slaves will be machines that do all the work. Stars4change (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the US?

I came here looking to see when US states abolished slavery and found nothing. The only link to Slavery in the United States appears to be the one in the "See also" section. The usual problem with lack of a global view is that there is too much about the US. But this article has virtually nothing. What gives?JQ (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you have overlooked the "Atlantic slave trade" section? And if you follow the main article link there, you will find most of what you are looking for or links to articles that have it.

It makes sense the cover the whole of the Americas in one section, because the whole Atlantic slave trade was one "industry". And what an appallingly long-lived industry it was. I haven't got around to reading the Black Book of Capitalism, but I believe it features prominently in that book. Grant | Talk 10:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't overlook the section on the Atlantic slave trade, which is only a minor part of the story of slavery in the US. Slavery grew massively in the US after the abolition of the Atlantic trade, and IIRC was the subject of a fair-sized war, which this article manages not to mention.JQ (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic slave trade might be better entitled Slavery of Africans in the Americas and Europe and does include the history of slavery in the US. As that article says, more slaves were sent to Brazil than to North America, so I don't know that this article is under-doing the US aspect.

Conversely, I do agree that the US Civil War is highly relevant, as a war largely caused by slavery and deserves a a paragraph in this article. Grant | Talk 09:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The US (more precisely the colonies that later became the US) was a minor player in the Atlantic slave trade. What was big and distinctive in the US was the growth of a domestic slave population, with slave children raised for sale. In other countries, a combination of high mortality, absorption into the general population and policies of gradual emancipation meant that this didn't happen on a large scale. What this article needs is a separate section on the US, linking to the main article. I will draft something when I get some free time.JQ (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Slavery and the Catholic Church

The article claims that two papal encyclicals endorsed slavery in the new world. The article cited in support if those claims, however, doesn't provide any evidence for them -- to the contrary, it argues rather strongly AGAINST them. I think there's a POV issue with the article; as a first step to correcting it, we need to find accurate sources for the arguments already put forward. Can anybody help? Innocent76 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the Catholic Encyclopedia article then from what I can see you have a point in that CE cites the papal documents condemning slavery but it only alludes to the ones prior to the colonization of the Americas which approve slavery i.e Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex and these along with perhaps Inter caetera are described in some works (try google) for creating at best a climate of ambiguity or at worst actively encouraging slavery in the Americas. It's not an article I contribute to so maybe one of the regular editors could clarify and provide better refs. Taam (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This link[2] (p65-75) seems to list relevant church teachings relating to slavery and their context. Taam (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Taam, neither Charles Curran (the editor of the book you cite) nor Diana Hayes (the author of the partial bibliography) enjoy the reputation of objective Church historians. They're both noted Church liberals, and Curran at least is well known for his efforts to change Catholic doctrine in ways that will (in his opinion) make them more relevant to the modern age. Which is to say: they're both POV as heck. (Hayes' rather tendentious understanding of the "context" of Church teachings stands out in this regard.) Certainly their positions should be presented in a discussion on the Church's relationship to slavery. So should the positions of those that contradict them.

In my view, a fair account of the Church's position towards slavery has to acknowledge the following factors: the hierarchy's consistent acceptance of bond slavery and other forms of subjection (serfdom, villeinage, forced labor by prisoners) on the condition that certain rights be protected; the hierarchy's consistent opposition to the enslavement of Christians, under any terms; the hierarchy's deep reservations about chattel slavery; the Church's pastoral response to industrial capitalism, and the changed attitude that engendered towards bonded labor in all its forms. Within that discussion, there's going to be room for multiple perspectives on the Church and the ambiguity it may or may not have fostered. At present, the article addresses only one perspective -- and it doesn't source that perspective very well at all.

So how about this: let's find a good source for the critical perspective already presented, and let's add another paragraph to present the more supportive views attested in the CathEnc article, and in some of the resources at the bottom of the article. Does that sound like a good start? Innocent76 (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to integrate the pro and anti slavery texts, and trying to give them a context, is I think the right way to go. As for the book cited, it was the only one I could find on a google search that listed the main documents in a chronological sequence. As for liberal-conservative perceptions, I would leave them aside -- whats more important would be to find out the factual accuracy of what they report as being the context. I realize the dangers of bias that's always knocking at the door of these kind of issues but you seem to be wanting to be inclusive so I would encourage your proposed method. Taam (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The following show popes that CONDEMNED slavery, when people were made slaves simply because they could be, whereas the Saracens were made slaves for being pirates and enemies in the Crusades:

"These people (of the Canary Islands)are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."--Pope Eugene IV, Sicut Dudum January 13, AD 1435

"Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property..should the contrary happen, it [justification] shall be null and have no effect."--Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei May 29, AD 1537

In addition, IN SUPREMO APOSTOLATUS by P. Gregory XVI in 1839 CONDEMNS slavery and was read to a council of Bishop in Baltimore in the same year. Also interesting, there was atleast one pope that was a former slave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is anyone can cherry pick quotes for apologetic reasons to slant the argument for pro and anti-slavery positions, but what matters is the full range of such pronouncements and context. Take for example the passage above quoted from "Sicut Dudum" which omits the beginning of the text that indicates that baptised Christians, or those who were likely to become so, were being enslaved to the loss of the Church. The text ends with "We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above"[3] This is why not everyone accepts this document as being a blanket condemnation of slavery.

As for Sublimus Dei: "it was not considered to contradict earlier papal pronouncements because it did not apply to hostile non-Christian enslaved in just wars."[4]

As for the very late (1839) In Supremo Apostolatus: "The British Parliament outlawed slavery and slave trade in all dominions in 1838. Gregory did not condemn "just" enslavement or slave trade; nor did he excommunicate slave traders. Bishops in the U.S South decided his prohibition did not apply to U.S slavery."[5] Taam (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You cited a work by CURRAN, he is about the ONLY "theologian" that claims this, Curran was not a legitamate theologian, he is considered heretical, just see his page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curran_(theologian) No theologian or scholar says "well lets see what Curran says" thats because Curran is unreliable and incompetent. Sublimus Dei says EXPLICITLY: "the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. "23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger (talk • contribs)

Not only is he so good he gets to teach Catholicism at a Protestant universirt, "Curran has been deemed, by the Vatican, unfit to teach Catholic theology". Traditionally in Catholicism the ONLY time slavery is allowed is when taking your ENEMY in a just war captive, this was not the case with the people of the ivory coast, or native Americans, thats why the Pope didn't condemn ALL slavery. Supremo Apostolatus condemned slave traders and said previous popes did likewise:

It is at these practices that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III, given on May 29, 1537, under the seal of the Fisherman, and addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII on April 22, 1639 to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare 'to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,' to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated.

User:Theruteger23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)~

If you read carefully the response I made to the original editor and the advice given thereafter then you will better understand my viewpoint about the avoidance of cherry-picking quotes without context and integrating all the material into a coherent whole. Not everyone is interested in your internecine squabbles, who is or isn't a heretic etc., this is Wikipedia and not a Roman Catholic apologetic site to impose a version of Absolute Truth on the rest of the world.

I have already answered your point about Sicut Dudum and not to take isolated passages out of context. The part you quote has also to be balanced with the other passage quoted in a scholarly work that interprets the text as a whole not just a source that takes, like you do, a fragment without dealing with the apparent ambiguity introduced by the other section. I haven't seen on-line a source which does this other than in the Religious Tolerance web site (which I haven't as yet seen described as anti-catholic) which states:

After Spain discovered the Canary Islands the Spanish colonized the islands In 1435 Pope Eugene IV wrote a bull to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote titled "Sicut Dudum." In it, he noted that the black inhabitants of the Islands had been converted to Christianity and either baptized or promised baptism. Subsequently, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved. He commanded that all enslaved Christians who were inhabitants of the Canary Islands be freed from slavery. The Pope's concern appears to have been over the enslavement of Christians by Christians, not the institution of human slavery itself.

The passage you refer to in "Sublimus Dei" is dated 1537 however in "Dum Diversas" dated 1452, and affirmed in later works (see first post), others see slavery being sanctioned for "pagans" etc.[6]. But this only to emphasize that there has to be an approach that integrates all the relevant material and not just simply taking bits and pieces to load the issue one way or the other. Taam (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

you said "about the avoidance of cherry-picking quotes without context and integrating all the material into a coherent whole." My point is you are quoting an INCOMPETENT source. You are talking bits that you favor to, like omitting when slavery was permited and when it was condemned, i posted papal encyclicals that condemned the enslavement of Indians. The Saracens were not even pagans, they were Muslims i believe, and they were ONLY enslaved because they opposed the Christian church in the crusades, they enslavement was a response to what they did, since they conspired against Christians they were enslaved, however the Indians and blacks did not, and their enslavement was condemned. I always see people quoting poor sources on articles, most of them come from religious tolerance.com which is not scholarly at all.Theruteger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

Even a Christian could become a slave:

We excommunicate and anathematize, moreover, those false and impious Christians who, in opposition to Christ and the christian people, convey arms to the Saracens and iron and timber for their galleys. We decree that those who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them.

This is the origin of Dum Diversas condemnation of the Saracenes, its was purely because they opposed them in the Crusades, notice even a Christian here could become a slave.

The enslavement of the West African and Indians is completely independent of the enslavement of the Saracenes..05:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger (talk • contribs)

Well on reading your comments all that comes to mind is Mark Twain's "curtain of charity" (see ch 4 of "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer"). If at some point you are open to listening to scholarly opinion on these matters that seeks to take into account all of the material, (not just the ones taken out of context, or entirely omitted) then I will happily share with you what I have found out. Taam (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again Curran IS NOT a scholarly opinion, he was fired from his job he was so terrible, Cardinal Avery Dulles on slavery writes in [first things][7]:,

Eugene IV in 1435 condemned the enslavement of the peoples of the newly colonized Canary Islands and, under pain of excommunication, ordered all such slaves to be immediately set free. Pius II and Sixtus IV emphatically repeated these prohibitions. In a bull addressed to all the faithful of the Christian world Paul III in 1537 condemned the enslavement of Indians in North and South America. Gregory XIV in 1591 ordered the freeing of all the Filipino slaves held by Spaniards. Urban VIII in 1639 issued a bull applying the principles of Paul III to Portuguese colonies in South America and requiring the liberation of all Indian slaves.

In 1781 Benedict XIV renewed the call of previous popes to free the Indian slaves of South America. Thus it was no break with previous teaching when Gregory XVI in 1839 issued a general condemnation of the enslavement of Indians and Blacks. In particular, he condemned the importation of Negro slaves from Africa. Leo XIII followed along the path set by Gregory XVI.

also see church history and slavery <<---this link was thru google scholar

Kindly stop ignoring evidence proving otherwise Taam, how can you accuse anyone of not "listening to scholarly opinion on these matters" when you have yet to shown a real church historian?05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theruteger (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your further comments. The articles you cite from Cardinal Avery Dulles and Father Panzer deal only with "anti-slavery" papal documents and not with the "pro-slavery" texts such as Dum Diversas. Father Curren's book mentions both - it wasn't him who wrote the relevent section. If the criteria is coverage of all the relevant documents then Father Curren's book is the more comprehensive. Because he doesn't conform to your brand of religious ideology is no reason to exclude him. I repeat Wikipedia is not a place to enforce any person or groups party line to the exclusion of all others. I have no objection to using Cardinal Dulles or Father Panzers as source material, all I desire is that other views are incorporated. I have to say that when researching this material there seemed to be two distinct camps. The first group appear to be very sympathetic to the values of Christianity and setting out all "anti-slavery" evidence but without including the "pro-slavery" material. The second group, whose religious affiliation is not clear to me, give both kinds of texts. I am in the process of collating cited material that I hope will cover all points of view and will either post it here or create a new article that covers a particular period of history when the era of colonization brings into sharp relief these issues. Taam (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see two specific problems with the current references to the Catholic Church's views on slavery.

   1. The statement related to footnote 27 says it "encouraged" the
      practice "beginning from the mid 15th century". This claim
      implies that the support for slavery was unanimous and ongoing
      from that time, which is not accurate. The original source
      correctly indicates that these Church documents provided the
      justification for slavery, but the article oversimplifies.

      The referenced book is organized as a dictionary, not a
      continuous narrative, and it also mentions activities of
      the Church opposed to slavery in other entries.

      I didn't add this material, but I changed "beginning from"
      as a first step, to at least recognize that this support
      was limited to a particular time period/situation.

   2. The article text near footnote 28 (which references the
      Catholic Encyclopedia) is misleading. The referenced
      article only loosely refers to the time period when these
      papal bulls were written, and it attempts to explain and
      limit the Church's support for slavery as a response to
      warfare.

      If anything, the Catholic Encyclopedia is generally slanted in the 
      opposite direction about controversial issues, so it certainly
      doesn't support the (in my opinion, correct) viewpoint that these
      documents were used to justify the slave trade.

      I changed the article text to accurately reflect the viewpoint
      of this source, and added a citation tag to the unsupported
      statements which follow it.

I think these two changes improve the balance somewhat, but I agree that a more detailed treatment is needed. I welcome any comments or feedback.

StephenMacmanus (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added Sublimus Dei (issued in 1537) to the article to balance the Catholic Church's explicit condemnation of enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alimony

Is it worth mentioning that Alimony is a form of endentured servitude and as such is a legalised modern day slavery? MattUK (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Contracts, by definition, limit one's rights, and are a necessary part of living in civilized society. One must sometimes give up certain rights in order to live in partnership or close proximity to others. A marriage contract, for example. More times than not, these contracts end disagreeably; yet, we continue to enter into them (and exit them) because they are necessary. Perhaps the best definition of a slave is someone who is not entitled to his or her day in court. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of Valachian poster

There are some doubts regarding the authenticity of the said image. The text on it places the advertisement in 1852 but in that year in writing was used the Cyrillic alphabet not the Latin which is used in the image. Can anyone point to the source of the image?

Thanks,

Echer (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Language or Weasel words?

The section on the History of Slavery begins: "Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records..." and goes on to mention "the Bible" and "the Code of Hammurabi".

This does not seem accurate to me - the earliest records are arguably not any of the examples mentioned. There are much older religious and historical texts, as well as earlier non-written records (Cave paintings).

Perhaps this "poetic license" should be changed to words similar to "Slavery has been documented in ancient texts including the Bible" ... or "Slavery has existed for over 1000 years and has been documented in early texts including ...." or similar.

118.208.140.219 (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article's use of these would be better supported by offering more facts about how the words "slave" were translated through these texts and offer a little more context abou their use. For example, the claim that "much of Hammurabi's code governs slave trade" may not take into account the translation of the word "slave".

(Link to the text of Hammurabi's code, translated by Robert Francis Harper https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Code_of_Hammurabi_(Harper_translation).

There are 52 mentions of the word "slave" in the 282-item Code. (Compare to "field," 93, and "ox," 31.

In many of the instances of the word "slave," livestock could be interchangeable and the spirit of the declaration remain intact. I propose that the translation was so tinted by Harper's experience of and participation in British and American colonial systems that he was unable to render a distinctive conceptual difference between "slave" and "livestock" in his language deciphering of ancient Semitic languages. There are much fewer instance of the word "slave" whose context necessitates humanity Harper was an Assyrian and Babylonian scholar in turn of the 20th century England and in Jim Crow Chicago.

Beyond that, most of the sources I can find that support the statement, "much of Hammurabi's code is about slavery" are all unsyndicated blogs run by editorializing individuals. Amphelos (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

merge from Voluntary slavery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article as it currently stands is a very brief stub, and within the scope of the main slavery article. I propose it be merged with no prejudice against splitting it back off if significant expansion is made. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is good stub with a lot of potential. --99.2.159.151 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Even if that is granted, it is not living up to that potential. As I said, if someone actually did expand it (as opposed to saying that it could be expanded) it could be split back off. No content would be "lost" either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• It isn't? As far as I know AFD's that result in keep, like this one just got, are considered objective evidence of strong potential within the wikipedia community. Correct me if i'm wrong. --99.2.159.151 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, you're not wrong, you're just ignoring my central point. As it stands now it is a very brief stub that could be easily merged into this article with no ill effects. Persons searching for this term would still find the information they were looking for. If at some point in the future somebody actually did expand it, instead of just talking about it it could be split back off just as easily. That was and is why I think it should be merged. If you would care to expand the article into, say, a start-class article, I would gladly withdraw my proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done If at some point in the future somebody wants to expand it, it can be split back off. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add eight-hour day

I'm adding a link to Eight-hour day because that article shows the wage system was & is slavery because they had to work 10 to 16 hours a day, or starve, & many were children. It deformed & killed many prematurely, & they were worse off than "real slaves." Stars4change (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems bias to me. Very bias. It only focuses on slavery pertaining to black people, but it explains nothing about slavery in Asia, especially Philippines, Thailand, and Cambodia. There's also slavery in parts of Eastern Europe. It seems like the person who made this article is prejudice toward blacks. B-Machine (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

- Pointing out that a racial group is being exploited is not prejudice towards that group, if anything it´s the opposite. This article is merely incomplete not prejudiced, and you can feel free to add to it.88.82.206.90 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

- Shouldn't there be an article about slavery by Germany in WWII by forcing millions of Jews, Poles and Russians etc into forced labour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.179.0 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal slavery is also not mentioned at all. After all the slavery in most places (like USA) was limiter rather than abolished. The 13^th ammendment clearly states "except as a punishment for the crime". Beta M (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly not much to read about the british empire being based on slavery for centuries :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.147.48 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy between this article and others regarding slavery.

This article states, "In 1777, Vermont became the first portion of what would become the United States to abolish slavery (at the time Vermont was an independent nation)." (It would help to have a reference for this statement.)

However, the article on Roger Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_%28theologian%29) states, "On May 18, 1652, Rhode Island passed the first law in North America making slavery illegal.[6][7]" The priority of the law in Rhode Island should be noted in this article.

There may be a difference in what is considered slavery versus time-limited servitude. The reference for the 1652 Rhode Island law is the document at http://www.dinsdoc.com/lauber-1-5.htm, which states,

The Rhode Island authorities also limited the bondage of Indians to a period of years. On May 18, 1652, the colony passed a law “that no black mankind or white” should be “forced by covenant, bond or otherwise, to serve any man or his assignees longer than ten years, or until they became twenty-four years of age, if they be taken in under fourteen, from the time of their coming within the limits of the colony; and at the end of the term of ten years, they were to be set free, “as the manner is with English servants”.2

Either the framers of the law intended that Indians be included under the terms “black mankind or white”, or else the subject of Indian slavery had not yet attracted the attention of the law makers at this time. Probably the latter is the true explanation of the omission of the term “Indian” from the act, though at a later time the same restriction of service was applied to Indians without legislation.

2 Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, i, p. 243; Richman, Rhode Island, its Making and its Meaning, ii, p. 192.

Note, however, that the article at http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm states, "Black slaves were in Rhode Island by 1652, and by the end of that century Rhode Island had become the only New England colony to use slaves for both labor and trade. After overtaking Boston by 1750, Newport and Bristol were the major slave markets in the American colonies. Slave-based economies existed in the Narragansett plantation family, the Middletown crop workers, and the indentured and slave craftsmen of Newport. FredCox (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Biological slavery

Certain bioethicists have theorized the futuristic possibility of biological slavery in the event where bioethical standards steadily decline and where various kinds of sub-humans and semi-humans are produced for purely biological or economic reasons. It might be a good idea if this could be mentioned somehow in the article. There is also a related term known as biological colonialism. [8][9][10][11] ADM (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth creating a new article and adding a See also wikilink here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arab Slave Trade

I was just reading about the Arab slave trade and I found a few things which I would like to bring up.

1. The article reads "One of the reasons for the European powers colonizing nearly the entire African continent during the 1880s and 1890s was the desire to end slave trading and slavery in Africa.[72]", I can't find any reason why that is true. There is nothing in the the "Colonialism" and "Abolitionism" to suggest so and the citation leads to a discontinued Microsoft Encarta site. The "Scramble for Africa" article only says that the King of Belgium, Leopold the II, used abolitionism as a pretext to acquire Congo. I think that the way it is written is misleading since it makes it seem as though all the European Powers sincerely made ending slavery a main goal when colonizing Africa, when the truth is only one European power did so and insincerely.

2.It says that the Arab slave trade went on for more than a millennium and that 11 million to 18 million people were taken during that time. It then goes on to compare it to the Atlantic slave trade which it says only 9.4 million to 12 million people were taken but has no reference to the time period, which is about 400 years. The article reads

"Zanzibar was once East Africa's main slave-trading port, and under Omani Arabs in the 19th century as many as 50,000 slaves were passing through the city each year.[68][69] Some historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million black African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 AD to 1900 AD,[1][70][71] compared with the 9.4 to 12 million Africans who were taken to the Americas.[1]One of the reasons for the European powers colonizing nearly the entire African continent during the 1880s and 1890s was the desire to end slave trading and slavery in Africa.[72] "

I feel that this section needs to be revised, its misleading and almost seems as though the writer its trying to make the Arab slave trade look worse than the Atlantic slave trade unjustly. It needs to add in the time period of the Atlantic slave trade because if we don't, the reader will get an unjustified impression; Have both time periods and allow the reader to make the choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suleydaman (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing Chronology of Abolition=

This article is already way too long, and the information in this section is already in another article. It doesn't seem to add much to the article to me, nor to make much sense as far as why we chose these specific nations/states over others. This really seems to take up a lot of space, and doesn't add much to the article. I suggest putting a link to the article for the Chronology in the "See Also" section. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

In the first paragraph of the Economics section, near the end of the paragraph: "...high prices in the world markey." Someone should fix the spelling mistake.

 Done -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (apparently garbled caption text)

Under the first picture (Abyssinian slaves) in the section Abolitionist Movements, the caption text ends with the sentence, "Anti-Slavery Society estimated there were 2 million slaves in Ethiopia in the early llion." The non-word "llion" may have been the result of a copy-paste error.

The attached footnote also appears in the main article body, following what was most likely the intended text: "The Anti-Slavery Society estimated there were 2 million slaves in Ethiopia in the early 1930s out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million."

--Encyclopedia Blipvertica (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture in wrong place?

The picture Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg shows up in my browser in Contemporary Slavery even though it is from the US Civil War. I think this photo should definitely be moved as it is somewhat disturbing. Though that may be quite justifiable given this subject, this photo does not relate to the section. —Rehoboam (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (garbled text)

This has been reduced, probably by several edits, to only two sentences. It is now borderline incomprehensible. After reading it about six times, I'll propose a minimal revision below, but it would help if someone could check that my reading is correct:

'Adam Smith made the argument that free labor was economically better than slave labor, and argued further that slavery in Europe ended during the Middle Ages, and only then after both the church and state were separate, independent and strong institutions,[159] that it is nearly impossible to end slavery in a free, democratic and republican forms of governments since many of its legislators or political figures were slave owners, and would not punish themselves, and that slaves would be better able to gain their freedom when there was centralized government, or a central authority like a king or the church.[160] Similar arguments appear later in the works of Auguste Comte, especially when it comes to Adam Smith’s belief in the separation of powers or what Comte called the "separation of the spiritual and the temporal" during the Middle Ages and the end of slavery, and Smith's criticism of masters, past and present.'

to:

'Adam Smith made the arguments that free labor was economically better than slave labor; that slavery in Europe ended during the Middle Ages, and only then after both the church and state were separate, independent and strong institutions[159]; that it is nearly impossible to end slavery in a free, democratic or republican government, since many of its legislators or political figures are slave owners and would not punish themselves; and that slaves would be better able to gain their freedom when there was centralized government or a central authority, like a king or the church[160]. Similar arguments appear later in the works of Auguste Comte, especially regarding Adam Smith’s belief in the separation of powers, or what Comte called the "separation of the spiritual and the temporal" during the Middle Ages and at the end of slavery, and regarding Smith's criticism of masters, past and present.' ZLMarshall (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

POV in Arab Slave

It takes the highest estimate for the Arabs and the lowest for the European trade in Africans. Check this 18 million by Arabs. Yet 12 million by the European trade??? Check the problem. 12 million ARRIVED. How can you compare an arrival with a departure? If teh Arabs took 18 million did 18 million also arrive?. If 12 million arrived in the America's legally how many died, in Africa, on the ships. We have many sources yet only the white ones get in here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Christianity in the Other Uses section

The reference to the use of the term slavery in Christianity should be removed as it is irrelevant to the article and the term is being used as a metaphor. Slavery has been used as a metaphor in countless works and none of those instances are relevant to this article so they don´t belong here. There are actually many I would like to add but will not in respect of the rule of not making arguments through demonstration. 88.82.206.90 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Slave population and percentages of the original thirteen colonies in 1770

I am seeking clarification of the numbers. To me, the percentages total far more than 100. Could someone better than me in math and history clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKhanrad33 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the figures, I suspect the user who originally added them was a bit confused - it's not a percentage of the total number of slaves, it's a percentage of the population of the state. So, for example, the 65,000 for Maryland would mean a state population of ~200,000, one third of which was slaves; this fits reasonably well with the figures at Demographic history of the United States, which has 160k in 1760 and 240k in 1780.

That said, there's no source given for the numbers, and they seem excessively detailed for the general article on slavery - if anything, they'd be more appropriate in Slavery in the United States. I've removed them for the time being. Shimgray | talk | 01:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

slavery

Slavery must be stopped it is a very cruel thing to do to buy a person for a mere ten pounds and then kill them.It is a very disturbind matter and more should be done about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.21.10 (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

definitions

under the definitions part, it says the ILO does not included forced labor, this is the opposite of what is true, and is contradicted by the cited source. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now and then

The statistic about the most slaves living today of any time in history seems superficial. The total human population is vastly greater today than hundreds of years ago. A more accutate impression is conveyed by noting the proportion of slaves in the population, not absolute numbers. If absolute numbers appear in the lead at all, they should only be a qualifier to proportions. K. the Surveyor (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

reason for slavery

Can a section be added to explain that the reason for slavery is that nobody really wants to work a lower class job? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

black slavery still exists in egypt

in southern egypt i forgot the name of the area . but it still exists over there . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nader ecl (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Source? Kielbasa1 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Types of Slavery

I wonder if it would help to have a section on types of slavery. The most common are physical labor and sex slaves. But, are there slaves for every profession, even perhaps intellectual labor slaves. Just I've never heard of a slave accountant, lawyer, or programmer. I figured also slave soldiers would be a very bad idea- if they decide they don't want to be slaves anymore and turn on their masters. The snare (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of slaves being classified into "physical labor" and "sex slaves." Obviously these did exist but they may not form very useful categories for general analysis. K. the Surveyor (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There were no "types" of slaves. They were considered the property of their owners and had to follow all their orders, including those involving sex, or accounting. -- Orionist ★ talk 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

In the 'Current situation' section, in the third paragraph, 'Enslavement is also taking place in other parts of Africa...' should intstead read 'Enslavement is also taking place in parts of Africa...', i.e. without the 'other'. No other part of Africa has been recently mentioned.

Done Thanks for catching that! -- Orionist ★ talk 21:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC) slavery is not allowed anymore. that i know of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.151.5 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Americas

I suggest an excerpt from; and link to; [12] to correct a glaring omission in the Americas section, which starts rather inappropriately with African-European slave trading and frankly is a mess anyway.

In the Pre-Columbian Americas slavery was widespread, with warring tribes commonly enslaving captives and some tribes even specializing in slave raiding and trading, including trading with early European colonizers.

Best of luck to anyone accepting this request.

71.169.113.172 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The number of slaves today remains as high as 12 million to 27 million

I think this sentence is misleading. First, it is obvious that slavery is illegel everywhere. But by definition, slavery is a legal status. Thus all people who held in capture or forced to work are not slaves but captives or anything else. Also people who under different types of legel dependency are not slaves either. Sex trafficing is sometimes called slavary but this is a completely different term and should not be compared with legal slavery. I would add to this that slavery is by definition is ownership of another person by the owner. Since ownership is a legal category, just holding somebody in captivity or dependency does not amount to ownership. So I consider the applying the term to the modern human trafficing a case of allegory.--MathFacts (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But why does slavery persist today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.113.108 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@MathFacts: The article seems to wander between the original definition of slavery (a human being as the legal property of another), and the modern, wider description that includes forced labor, bond labor and trafficking. By looking at the article history it seems that much of that was added in recent months. However, the definition in the article's lead is lacking and needs a bit more detail. I've had a look at the Britannica article and their definition is much clearer:

“ Slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.

There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else. In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate. They were objects of the law, not its subjects. Thus, like an ox or an ax, the slave was not ordinarily held responsible for what he did. He was not personally liable for torts or contracts. The slave usually had few rights and always fewer than his owner, but there were not many societies in which he had absolutely none. As there are limits in most societies on the extent to which animals may be abused, so there were limits in most societies on how much a slave could be abused. The slave was removed from lines of natal descent. Legally and often socially he had no kin. No relatives could stand up for his rights or get vengeance for him. As an “outsider,” “marginal individual,” or “socially dead person” in the society where he was enslaved, his rights to participate in political decision making and other social activities were fewer than those enjoyed by his owner. The product of a slave’s labour could be claimed by someone else, who also frequently had the right to control his physical reproduction.

”

I think a good solution would be to stick to that definition, but still mention the modern definition in the lead, or maybe in the "contemporary slavery" section. something like "Slavery is sometimes used nowadays as a term for such and such" or "the modern day notion or definition of slavery is sometimes extended to include such and such.." or something similar. Then we can move irrelevant information to the relevant articles, leaving short notes if necessary. I'd like to know what other editors think of that. -- Orionist ★ talk 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Nothing to add. Slave is different from an illegally held captive person in that if he tried to escape, he would be returned to the owner by the law enforcement agency. This is very important difference.--MathFacts (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a good idea to use tertiary sources (like EB) as our main guidance per WP:RS. You are talking that unfree labour is not necessarily slavery. But as long as a large number of contemporary secondary sources calls something "slavery", it belongs to this article/subject. Biophys (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Slavery by animals

Is there a reason the slavery page is restricted to slavery by/of humans? I think it would be appropriate to include slavery by animals - for instance, the Honeypot ant - for complete understanding of the subject. Hyrden (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are joking, aren't you? DeCausa (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Wasps also enslave cockroaches, and you could possibly include the green-banded broodsac - a type of worm - in the discussion as well. I'm no zoologist, but it is naive to believe humans are the only beings capable of enslavement. Hyrden (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I don't doubt that this occurs. I was asking if you were joking about including it here i.e that's ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he is correct although as to whether on not that should be included on this page I'm not sure. Most concepts of sociology can be applied to the animal kingdom in the same way as in humans. As to whether or not that should be givin equal validty I'm not sure. On one hand it would clearly be anthropocentric and speciesist not to include them however on the other hand it would be clearly offensive to humans including my ancestors to compare there slavery to that of animals -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is slavery legal?

The article contains the statement "Although outlawed in nearly all countries, slavery still exists". The cited sources support the "still exists" statement but not the "outlawed in nearly all countries". The "nearly" means in one or more countries it's legal. If this is correct (and I suspect it is not) the article should name the countries DeCausa (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered my own question (with this source) and amended article accordingly. DeCausa (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete economics section

The ecomomics section should be deleted. Economics is not the main reason why there has been slavery throughout history, the negative effects of a man being a lower class worker are the reasons for slavery. A man who works a lower class job will be much less likely to get a wife or have kids so men avoid working lower class jobs by way of forcing other people to do the lower class work. So men enslaving other men is genetically beneficial since women hate lower class men. If working a lower class job gave a man an equal chance of getting a high mate woman for a mate then there would be no slavery. This human evolutionist fact can be found in the book The Moral Animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I searched on the word Irish and didn't find it. In the decade 1641 to 1652 the English killed 500,000 Irish people and sold another 300,000 into slavery. The population of Ireland dropped from 1.5 million to 600,000 during this time. In 1656 Oliver Cromwell had 2,000 Irish children sold as slaves to English settlers in Jamaica. More Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas. Since my last name comes from the son of an Irish slave father and an African slave mother, I have an interest in seeing the full truth told here. When I have time I'll research this and provide sources for information I cannot recall the root of.

66.188.106.93 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Richard Rankin (richard.rankin@ieee.org)

Slavery Conceptual Framework: Limitation, Scientism, Mainstreaming, & Rationalism

I have used Wiki for years as quick source of credible information and frequently have lamented academia and scholarly gatekeepers for their disdain of the site as source of knowledge. However, today I found myself at the page for "slavery" and was more than shocked at the manner in which the material was presented. My concerns lie with the conceptual framework or paradigm from which the article apparently evolved. I will have to review the talk page guidelines but for now want to believe my demeanor does not violate Wiki protocol. Still, because of the topic (slavery) and its relevance to many contemporary issues, I suggest a bit more openness to an other, less mainsteamed, less marginalized orientation to the material or Way of establishing fact would be helpful. As it stands, the Wiki article reminds me of the politicize tirade of Dinesh DeSouza in his rhetorical and rationalizing article that portends to discuss the facts of slavery while only being an apology for an area of life and human values that begs denial before enlightenment. I will be giving a thourough review of the article in the days to come but wanted to trust my initial observations. The seemingly indisputable concept of "Human Rights" and all other knowledge seem contested in this Information Age. Yet there must be a Way of sharing knowledge that does not ipso facto concede to left or right positions of authority. Does Wiki care to balance its presentation of this important entry? I dare say that as written the article reads as a bombardment of facts without any human emotion. I would like at least to find a "Criticism" section in the main page since many readers will not go to the discussion to get information. In the entry on "Psychohistory" I found the kind of balanced presentation I would like to see here. Even the long essay in the "Discussion" section of that article was a treasure so I hope some adjustment will occur here over time. The topic is surprizingly contemporary in the 21st century so our Way of understanding it should be cognizant of the mental frames and perspectives that promote its spread rather than argue against the peculiar institution. As-is the article seems almost pro-slavery. YearRay (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in England?

The article contains the sentence: "The trade in slaves in England was made illegal in 1102."

Illegal or not, the English trade in slaves certainly didn't end in 1102, and that sentence needs to be clarified if it's even true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.33.203 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm completely confused. I'm trying to understand how slavery came to be acceptable in the US. So what I am wondering is were there African slaves in England and the rest of Western Europe, and if so how prevalent was it and when did it stop.

Mystic eye (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Europe (after 1500) did not import slaves, except for some house servants in London and Paris. Europe had too many people in the first place and there was no need for slave workers. (The black slave/servants were luxury items for very rich men who owned plantations in the West Indies and lived in London or Paris). Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Slavery (..) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others". I'm looking for a definition of slavery and I'm afraid that sentence will not do. It could reasonably be held to be a pretty accurate legal definition (allowing for the emotive term "forced") of the situation of a wife in the UK until the 20th Century (and later in other countries). Even allowing for the somewhat unsatisactory arrangements regarding marriage in those times, I'm not sure that anyone would reasonably describe the role of "wife" as being the same as the husband's "slave". Is there a better definition I have missed?

More Irish were sold as slaves by the British to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas. The British engaged in the slave trade with vigor. They obtained slaves from both Africa and Ireland. While Ireland was the chief source of stock for the British, African slaves sold for 10 times what an Irish slave did. One British ship threw 132 Irish men, women and children overboard when food ran short. The "transportation" of slaves was outlawed by England in 1839, but not ownership. So the colonists continued to use slaves.

As to the equivalence of wife and slave, I see your point. I know of a couple that just divorced for that reason. In the Western world, when a wife finds that hubbie is a yahoo she generally gives him the boot. Alternatively, some feel trapped because of children and just start seeing other men. In the rest of the world it varies: In some Arabic countries a woman can divorce her husband by telling him three times "I divorce you". In India, divorce is virtually unheard of. Domestic violence is not. In many countries, large quantities of verbal abuse can straighten a husband out. Of course, there's always murder. Not unheard of even in the USA. I assume it provides a sense of satisfaction that divorce does not.

66.188.106.93 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Richard Rankin (richard.rankin@ieee.org)

Drg40 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the "I do" part of the wedding ceremony, an option not given to slaves. Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to complain about the statement, 'The trade in slave in England was made illegal in 1102. The reference #64: the last sentence of that referenced article says, 'Yet centuries later Bristol was once again embroiled in that shameful trade.' Then if you go back to Wikipedia to the larger article about slavery in Britian and Ireland it talks about various indentured servants and also talks about the African slave trade started by John Lok in 1555. So, slavery did not completely end in 1102. I believe that to be deceptive. Also, if you look under the introduction of the Slavery in Britian and Ireland it says slavery was completely abolished with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. I think Wikipedia needs to get all these articles to coincide.Mylittlezach (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Slavery was indeed illegal in England, but that prohibition did not extend to English (British after 1707) colonies, not did it prohibit English (later British) citizens from engaging in the slave trade outside of England. English/British participation in the slave trade involved carrying Africans to America, primarily to the Caribbean. As a rule, there were no slaves carried on the England to Africa and America to England legs of the triangular trade route. Planters returning from the colonies brought some slaves back to England with them as servants, and that was more or less ignored for a while, but when a case was brought to court (late 18th century, I believe, but I don't recall the name of the case right now), the court ruled that since slavery had been illegal in England for centuries, any slave who was brought to England was automatically freed. The Act of 1833 abolished slavery in British colonies. The importation of slaves into British colonies (the slave trade) had been abolished earlier. I'll keep an eye out for appropriate sources to cite. -- Donald Albury 13:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

William Wilberforce was given all the credit for what thomas clarksen did which ended the slave trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.217.153 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

As I have been given to understand it, far from being made illegal in the era of the Normans, by Magna Carta (1215), by the Tudors, or even by Slave Trade Act 1807, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, or the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998 which did a number of things you might have imagined had been done a lot earlier in our history, slavery as such was apparently somehow assumed not to exist in England, and so was only actually made illegal in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which came into force on 6 April 2010.

In Section 71 of this Act, Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, see that Section in the government legislation website, it is enacted in the first clause that a person commits an offence if (s)he holds another person in slavery or servitude and the circumstances are such that (s)he knows or ought to know that the other person is so held (etc.). It is basic stuff, and it isn't merely a tidying-up of previous legislation (which sometimes happens such as in 1998), as far as one can see.

The Wikipedia article on this Act fails to mention slavery (a search for the word on the page today failed) so that should be greatly expanded if it is to attempt any degree of completeness of what that quite long Statute contains. Iph (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As I recall (and I am no expert on English law) the prohibition of slavery in England was in Common Law, and not a legislative act. I seem to recall that a 16th century judge had ruled that a "Baltic" woman who had been brought to England as a slave was free because slavery did not exist in England. The 18th century case I recall revolved around whether habeas corpus applied to a slave who had been brought to England. The court found that it did, and (again, IIRC) cited that 16th century case. -- Donald Albury 13:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Most recent country to outlaw slavery

The article states that Mauritania outlawed slavery in 1981 and was the most recent country to do so; however, later in the article it says Mauritania criminalized slavery in 2007. I suggest clarifying these dates so that the reader understands what actions took place in 1981 and how they differed from the legislation in 2007. Also, Niger enacted legislation to outlaw slavery in 2004, so the 1981 date in Mauritania would not make it the most recent country to do so; however, the 2007 date would. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelimuso (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Slavery and bonded Labor

Why is bonded labor clubbed with slavery every time I see slavery? It is not human trafficking or loot and plunder of countries for slaves and booty in earlier times which was allowed by law.

Slavery and bonded labor are two separate topics and hiding slavery under bonded labor is just plain criminal mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.162 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hindu and Muslim India?

What is the meaning of Hindu and Muslim India?

Other than an attempt to hide filthy imperialism and divide and rule tactic, I do not see anything reasonable in "Hindu India", "Muslim India". It was then Hindustan as British Empire's invaded territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.162 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Islam And the Slave Trade

Noone talks of the Islam and the slave trade. But the reality is from about the 6th century until today, Muslims are a major players in the slave trade. When Mohammad strated Islam, he tried to sell it to the Jews. The Jews reject him and clsimed him to be a false teacher. He then found a group of Arabs to give him credit. From there he built his riches and armies and began to attck other nationsand peoples.

In Mohammad's quest for riches and power for Islam, he attacked other peoples and gave them the joice of to convert to Islam. IF they did not, he either killed them or took them as slaves. And since they were slaves, property, on could keep or sell them as they choose. Every time Mohammad attacked other nation, his armies got bigger and he gained more riches. He also captured many, mony more slaves. To finance his quest of "turning the world to Islam" through war...either convert to Islam or be captured to be killed or kepted as a slave...he sold slaves throughout the Mideast and Europe.

It was Mohammad who was first responsible for the selling of African slaves throughout Europe and eventually America and other colonies. However, most are unwilling to discuss this part of the slave trade because it is viewed as not "politically correct". But if one was to read the Quaran, they will read of of the directions of Mohammad to kill or take as slaves all who do not convert to Islam. It also direct Muslims to kill all who want to leave Islam. The Quaran directs Muslinms to spread Islam in any way needed to reach converts. This includes threats of war and killing, liing, and more. Those who want us to beleive much of the Quaran is not to be taken literal will tell us all kinds of meanings for those passages in the Quaran that directs Muslims of such hatred toward Jews, Christians, ans those who will not convert to Islam. But all has to do is look and see what is happening in the world to see the Quaran is taken literal by mainline Islam.

Throughout the world there are killings of wifes and children who try to leave Islam. There is stonings of women who are raped and report it, but do not have five witnesses. There is many many killings of Jews and Christians. The hatred and killings in the name if Allah are in great numbers each year. But mainstream news agencies will not report most of these because it is not "politically correct"

What we need to do is talk about the extent of Islam in the spreading of the slave trade throughout the world. This will be the only way we teach the truth. Many times being politically correct is not the best thing. Often it is dangerous to the free nations of the world. Just look and see what is happening in France and the UK. Do we want this to happen in America, South Africa, and other free nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclebud626 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Get a source for all of that and please adhere to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reorganizing information

Hello, I think information disregarding slavery should be put in a separate section (lets say contemporary view) and stop muddling the whole topic with others like bonded labor, migration(if present), ethnic cleansing(if present) and so on. Thisthat2011 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MOS. I would not consider that good organization.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi I have mentioned reasons along with each of the edits. Please give reasons why 4 edits are changed. Still for your information here are the reasons: 1 and 2. Related. Not required in first section see Wikipedia:LEAD. 3. Reasons given, as also put forth here link. 4. Additional information about slavery in India with sources. It is annoying to see 4 edits reverted in spite of reasons mentioned in comments. Please do the needful and revert to earlier changes made. --Thisthat2011 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just giving a reason is not enough--at this point, other editors have stated (directly or indirectly) that they object to the information you removed. At this point, you need to seek consensus on this page for those changes. Let's let some other editors discuss the issue, and, if others agree, then the info can be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If giving reasons, external links and Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:LEAD) is not enough, I don't think as a contributor to Wikipedia I can do much more in Wikipedia. Being on the side of reasonableness and truth should be more important and should not be made a choice to anyone, as is what this appears to head to.--Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

please point to direction in evolving consensus. I would like to add that edits for explained by reason no 3 and 4 are okay and can be incorporated.--Thisthat2011 (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in Ancient India

Hi,

This is about changes reverted by User:Athenean today. Is there a reason why this matter is to be ignored? How does the edit change coherence of topic when the article itself mentions India, pointing to Britannica which itself says that slavery in ancient India is hardly documented. It is indeed strange that Britannica is referred to here with an understanding that there is little documentation while sources that mention no slavery are ignored in spite of references. I don't know what to say about this behavior. The fact that "According to Megasthenes all the Indians were free and not one of them was a slave." is mentioned in various sources and can be added with better sources like [| this] or [| this ].

Furthermore, consider this from | here

Slavery, such as existed in olden times in other parts of the world, was unknown in India. Megasthenes emphatically asserts, " None of the Indians employ slaves." 1 And, again, he says, " All Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians and the Indians are so far in agreement. The Lake- daemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour ; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own." 2 This was perfectly true

I think talking about slavery in Hindusthan does not in anyway, change treatment of slavery at other places and should be considered as continuum in different outlook towards slavery in different parts of the world.

--Thisthat2011 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The source you are using, thirdmillenniumlibrary.com is unreliable, it is a self-published website and as such does not meet the requirements on reliable sourcing. As for Megasthenes himself, you do realize he is from 300 BC, and such sources should be interpreted with great caution. That's why instead of using primary sources like Megasthenes himself, it is far preferable to use secondary sources, i.e. experts whose job it is to study such sources and interpret them for the benefit of the public. Unfortunately, the thirdmillenniumlibrary source you have used is not such a source. Also, you simply dropped that sentence at the end of a section, without any regard to the article's flow or coherence. "There was no slavery in India", bam, just like that. To me, that seemed like national boosterism. Athenean (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As for this source [13], it shows the opposite of what you claim. "Megasthenes' claim that all Indians were free was an idealistic picture inconsistent with reality." See what I mean by using experts on ancient history as sources rather than the ancient authors themselves? The interpretation of Megasthenes by Sen flatly contradicts what you added in the article. Athenean (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On second inspection, even the Sen source is of dubious reliability. Not sure what kind of publisher "New Age Books" is. Athenean (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed strange that ancient sources about slavery in India are ignored for expert views on the same exact subject. Though let me present here credibility of source [PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN ANCIENT INDIA | http://www.archive.org/stream/publicadministra00banerich/publicadministra00banerich_djvu.txt] as it is mentioned on first page 1. a thesis approved by the University of London for the degree of D.Sc.Econ BY PRAMATHANATH BANERJEA M.A. (CAL.), D.Sc. ECON. (LOND.) FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE CITY, RIPON AND SCOTTISH CHURCHES COLLEGES OF CALCUTTA, FELLOW OF THE ROYAL ECONOMIC SOCIETY, AND AUTHOR OF ( A STUDY OF INDIAN ECONOMICS* 2. MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED who printed this thesis MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 1916 3. http://www.archive.org/about/about.php about the website http://www.archive.org/. About "national boosterism", at the most it is regional but it is indeed part of the tradition and you can't fault me for being proud of practices that did not approve of slavery. The rules explicitely mention it as such in as late as Kautilya's Arthashastra and later in many source of many different kings and religions. This is a tradition in the Hindusthan region and can not be passed off as "national boosterism". About slavery in ancient India, I must point out that if it does not look like slavery, sound like slavery and not called slavery then it must not be slavery. So do let me know where to put the "All Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave" part. --Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere. Internet Archive is not a reliable source either. Athenean (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is as difficult to prove absence of slavery in ancient India by absence of its documentation. Better to refer to Slavery in India. At the least I can say that I am glad slavery is banned and its absence anywhere now and in future else is welcome. --Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is neither reliable not unreliable as a source. The question of reliability must be applied to the item that has been archived. In this case, it is a book, based on a doctoral thesis at a recognized university and published by a major publishing house, which creates a presumption that it is a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 11:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the claim is exceptional, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The source provided is not. Doctoral theses these days are published with minimal oversight in many instances. Modern-day scholars worth their salt only very rarely make sweeping statements like "All X were free and not one was a Y", and for good reason. Athenean (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

From links | this , | actual scan and the best scan | here points to the fact that it was published way back in 1916 for the first time and then printed later. Information about | the author.The statement is not made by the author but by [Megasthenes] quoted by the author. --Thisthat2011 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I already said, quoting Megasthenes himself word-for-word is problematic. Doesn't matter where the quote is from. Only a reliable, secondary source would be acceptable. Athenean (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not the place for original research.".. "except perhaps in some ancillary article.". There goes my shortcut to glory and actual thesis is not coming too. Just joking! Just wondering if a recent translation of a work can be said as Primary source or Secondary source. I think that | this is indeed a reliable secondary source. Perhaps one can mention in Asia section to refer topic [Slavery in India] for information in south Asia. --Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not for the kind of claim you wish to make. The source is almost 100 years old. The claim that there was no slavery in India at any time ever is quite exceptional, and only a source of the highest quality would be acceptable (e.g. a relatively recent sholarly review of the topic of slavery or ancient India). Athenean (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)