Slaveri is not a white on black crime. It's a rich on poor crime.

[Mormolyce]

Historical documents and old trade recipes found by historians... What does any of this have to do with game of thrones?

So you could show me the historical document where the Middle East "castrated every slave they purchased"?

What period of history are you even referring to here?

[Stelio Kontos]

Could you name a example of one of those slave eunuchs that rose up the ranks in the middle east?

Many Ottoman Janissaries rose to powerful positions within the ottoman hierarchy.

Now, most Janissaries were Balkan, not African. But initially they were castrati as well.

However, I won't make the argument that one form of slavery was worse than another, as I'm not willing to throw my ancestors under the bus to fit anyone's agenda.

Another brutal fact is that Janissary commanders were sometimes ordered to slaughter their home village as their final test in the corps. So it was a process of torture, forced conversion (sometimes castration), and then finally murdering their families and neighbors.

But yes, many of them did reach prominent heights within Ottoman society. In fact, Istanbul almost suffered a massive fire once when riots broke out between the supporters of two Janissary commanders who fought over the same slave-boy they wanted to, well, have.

But again, while that was horrific, none of that serves to lessen the severity of what Europeans in in the Atlantic slave-trade. A heinous act in one place does not mitigate another heinous act elsewhere.

[Macaquerie]

Many Ottoman Janissaries rose to powerful positions within the ottoman hierarchy.

Now, most Janissaries were Balkan, not African. But initially they were castrati as well.

However, I won't make the argument that one form of slavery was worse than another, as I'm not willing to throw my ancestors under the bus to fit anyone's agenda.

Another brutal fact is that Janissary commanders were sometimes ordered to slaughter their home village as their final test in the corps. So it was a process of torture, forced conversion (sometimes castration), and then finally murdering their families and neighbors.

But yes, many of them did reach prominent heights within Ottoman society. In fact, Istanbul almost suffered a massive fire once when riots broke out between the supporters of two Janissary commanders who fought over the same slave-boy they wanted to, well, have.

But again, while that was horrific, none of that serves to lessen the severity of what Europeans in in the Atlantic slave-trade. A heinous act in one place does not mitigate another heinous act elsewhere.

I always found the structure of Ottoman society to be utterly mind-boggling. Who in their right mind would think it's a good idea to put slaves in charge of the military and civil bureaucracy, and thus effectively running the whole show while the royal family mostly concerned itself with court intrigues and fratricide? Decrepit as it was by the end, how did that empire last for so long with such a strange system?

[primalmatter]

It's not that its "appalling" race war boy I'm just saying why does it matter? Its such a disingenuous question to ask why westerners are primarily concerned with the history of western slave trade and not the east. You know why but you live on being the forever contrarian edge lord that you are so this discussion will go no where.

Because to be blunt only a tiny minority understand the history of the subject and are given such a condensed bite sized portion that it doesn't really address the issue. It can be tied to violent political movements of today so I don't understand why efforts have not been made to correct it.

- - - Updated - - -

So you could show me the historical document where the Middle East "castrated every slave they purchased"?

What period of history are you even referring to here?

Only one I know of is accessible in a paywall data base for a Canadian university. While I am sure other copies exist it isn't exactly a newspaper article I can easily link to.

[fluffhead]

Can we please stop calling it the trans Atlantic slave trade? I'm pretty sure they were all cisgender.

[primalmatter]

Many Ottoman Janissaries rose to powerful positions within the ottoman hierarchy.

Now, most Janissaries were Balkan, not African. But initially they were castrati as well.

However, I won't make the argument that one form of slavery was worse than another, as I'm not willing to throw my ancestors under the bus to fit anyone's agenda.

Another brutal fact is that Janissary commanders were sometimes ordered to slaughter their home village as their final test in the corps. So it was a process of torture, forced conversion (sometimes castration), and then finally murdering their families and neighbors.

But yes, many of them did reach prominent heights within Ottoman society. In fact, Istanbul almost suffered a massive fire once when riots broke out between the supporters of two Janissary commanders who fought over the same slave-boy they wanted to, well, have.

But again, while that was horrific, none of that serves to lessen the severity of what Europeans in in the Atlantic slave-trade. A heinous act in one place does not mitigate another heinous act elsewhere.

You are correct I had forgotten the Ottoman empire that was mostly united by christian children kidnapped and raised as soldiers/leaders. I coincide that point.

[Dug]

Because to be blunt only a tiny minority understand the history of the subject and are given such a condensed bite sized portion that it doesn't really address the issue. It can be tied to violent political movements of today so I don't understand why efforts have not been made to correct it.

You realize that the few nutters who still genuinely feel like they're owed something for slavery back in the day aren't going to give a shit about some other culture on the other side of the world having "worse" slavery... normal people don't give a shit either because guess what it's all bad!

[Stelio Kontos]

I always found the structure of Ottoman society to be utterly mind-boggling. Who in their right mind would think it's a good idea to put slaves in charge of the military and civil bureaucracy, and thus effectively running the whole show while the royal family mostly concerned itself with court intrigues and fratricide? Decrepit as it was by the end, how did that empire last for so long with such a strange system?

I always viewed it as a weird Frankenstein-system. A system originating with nomadic pastoralists on the steppes of Central Asia, which passed through Persia, then Mesopotamia, before settling into Hellenized Anatolia.

What I found the strangest was how heirs were chosen, as you mentioned. I'm not sure if it went on for the entirety of the Ottoman empire, but they would have as many sons as they could, from the Sultana and from the Sultan's concubines, who would then essentially begin plotting against and murdering each other. I remember reading that one sultan had dozens of sons, and it was pretty bloody when the time came to settle the succession. Maybe the use of Janissaries and local collaborators (Greek Phanariots being an example) helped to keep a segment of the political/military forces intact without loyalties to particular factions of princes.

They were also adept at using ethnic problems to their advantage. They often chose marginalzied minorities to be their over-seers in a given region. For example, in Romania they had Phanariot Greeks as their overlords representing Turkish interests. In northern Greece, specially Thrace (Thessaloniki), they used Jewish overseers to maintain control over Greeks, Albanians, and Slavs. It served to misdirect local aggression in the case of uprisings. The British did similar things in Africa and south Asia.

[Scottyjscizzle]

People seem to think only black people were slaves for some reason, which is nonsense indeed.
Germanics have been slaves in the Roman Empire, Catholics in Muslim countries and vice versa, Africans kept defeated tribes as slaves etc. etc.

And today there are slaves in Saudi Arabia and Qatar for example.

Its almost like most People are speaking to us slavery, and the slavery during that time.

[Mormolyce]

Speaking of social systems that are incredibly bad ideas: I've often struggled to believe that the historical accounts of Spartan helotage could actually be true.

But again, while that was horrific, none of that serves to lessen the severity of what Europeans in in the Atlantic slave-trade. A heinous act in one place does not mitigate another heinous act elsewhere.

But surely I can use it to muddy the ethical waters and create a smokescreen to distract from my own appalling behaviour?

[Dug]

But surely I can use it to muddy the ethical waters and create a smokescreen to distract from my own appalling behaviour?

According to primalmatter if we don't stop talking about US slavery and how its relevant to us instead of focusing on the middle eastern slaves then him and his angry conservative buddies are going to start Civil War 2: electric boogaloo Soon™

[primalmatter]

You realize that the few nutters who still genuinely feel like they're owed something for slavery back in the day aren't going to give a shit about some other culture on the other side of the world having "worse" slavery... normal people don't give a shit either because guess what it's all bad!

I think it would help a bit with context on how the world operated. I have no illusions it would fix everything but I don't understand the mentality of anything that isn't a silver bullet is worthless.

[Dug]

I think it would help a bit with context on how the world operated. I have no illusions it would fix everything but I don't understand the mentality of anything that isn't a silver bullet is worthless.

There's nothing to "fix"

[primalmatter]

According to primalmatter if we don't stop talking about US slavery and how its relevant to us instead of focusing on the middle eastern slaves then him and his angry conservative buddies are going to start Civil War 2: electric boogaloo Soon™

I don't think I made that argument and im not a conservative beyond perhaps a financial one.

[Stelio Kontos]

Speaking of social systems that are incredibly bad ideas: I've often struggled to believe that the historical accounts of Spartan helotage could actually be true.

To be honest, that's always been a little surprising to me how Spartans have been lionized in the modern West, considering some of their practices. Athens had its issues, but compared to Sparta they were beacons of humanitarianism and progress.

Which reminds me. Recently there have been anti-foreigner attacks in Greece targeting mostly Pakistani laborers. The group claiming responsibility calls themselves Crypteia. In ancient Sparta, the Crypteia were, well, death-squads who every year were allowed to kill any helot they wished. They were usually the best students of the agoge, the Spartan military academy system, and the purpose of the yearly culling was to basically take out any helot who had power or prominence in any way. By taking out promising helots, they ensured the other helots would not rise up.

Frightening stuff.

[Macaquerie]

I think it would help a bit with context on how the world operated. I have no illusions it would fix everything but I don't understand the mentality of anything that isn't a silver bullet is worthless.

The problem is that because Middle Eastern slavery is cited so often by apologists for American slavery as deflection, that actually makes it hard to spread credible information and have an honest conversation about it. It's kind of like when Neo-Nazis are always bringing up the Holodomor as the "real" Holocaust, which again serves to discredit the actual suffering that took place.

[Sliske]

Slavery is different everywhere you go. Saying slavery is directed at any single race is comparable to saying cancer effects a single race.

Africans were sold by fellow Africans to be slaves in European empires and America, Arabic countries enslaved Europeans and brought them back to Arabic countries, Japanese enslaved Chinese, Africans to this day enslave their fellow Africans, what Arabic countries like Qatar do is arguably slavery towards Indians, Bangladeshi, Islamist extremist groups enslave women in particular in the middle east... etc

In its simplest form, slavery is basically taking members of another society and using them as forced labour. Sure, many countries used prisoners as slaves, but if we're talking just classic slavery, its kidnapping people from neighbouring countries, villages, whatever and working them to death.

This topic is retarded. The correct response when someone says "slavery was invented by white people" isn't to make a topic about it, its to laugh and move on.

[PACOX]

Well yes it is a feather in their cap. It wasn't so progressed that they had no use for the labor (nothing in comparison to the states mind you). They took it upon themselves to cripple a ancient evil of the world.

What always confuses me about this argument is how it somehow paints negros as the victims rather then the perpetrators? They captured, raised, and sold the most slaves how is this somehow shoved onto another group of people for the evil they created?

America offically stopped importing slaves almost 70 years before slavery was abolished, which means they had more than enough slaves that were already in US to sustain the institution. Africans traders were far removed from the system. When the US was importing, they usually got their slaves from European slavers, not African. The Africans also werent chaining people head-to-toe in the bottom of boats and throwing an excess "human cattle" overboard.

[Stelio Kontos]

This topic is retarded. The correct response when someone says "slavery was invented by white people" isn't to make a topic about it, its to laugh and move on.

I don't think anyone with a basic education makes the argument white people invented slavery. What one can say is that colonial Europeans (notice the different terminology to "white people") added a frightening new chapter to a very old book that everyone has contributed to.

[primalmatter]

America offically stopped importing slaves almost 70 years before slavery was abolished, which means they had more than enough slaves that were already in US to sustain the institution. Africans traders were far removed from the system. When the US was importing, they usually got their slaves from European slavers, not African.

I don't understand what it is your trying to say?

Because they bought from people who bought from African slave traders they where not involved?