Talk:Slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Slavery, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is becoming very long.
Please consider summarizing or transferring content to subtopic articles.
See Wikipedia:Long article layout and Wikipedia:Longpages for more information.

edit

Archives
2003-January 2007

[edit] 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)

[edit] slave traders

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

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

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

[edit] modern stats

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

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

[edit] Mongos or Slave Traders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Australia

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

[edit] Slaver Know And Slaver Forever

[edit] Article linking and tense

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

[edit] Article Size

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

[edit] Religion-Slavery

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

[edit] Request Protection

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

[edit] Out-of-context info in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

-A Bill Concerning Slaves, Virginia Assembly, 1779

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

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

[edit] Edit to Slavery/america

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

[edit] Reversion of edit

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

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

[edit] Legal protection of slaves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Quran section should mention verses

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

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

[edit] The Link for Chattel slavery links here

So im removing it

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

[edit] individual rights

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

[edit] External Links

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

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

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

[edit] Hallelujah! We've got Semi-protection

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

[edit] History of Slavery in the Americas should be removed or edited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Overemphasis on American (USA) slavery

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

[edit] Conversations about slavery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] um.....cool

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

[edit] Roman inconsistency?

How does this:

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

reconcile with this:

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

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

[edit] Slavery in India?

Hi,

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

[edit] Dubrovnik first to outlaw slavery

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/l/a/Talk%7ESlavery_0810.html"

Categories: B-Class sociology articles | High-importance sociology articles | Articles that are too long