This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from History of slavery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 August 2006. A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/August. |
To-do list for History of slavery:
Priority 3
|
A summary of this article appears in slavery. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of History of Slavery was copied or moved into Penal labour with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1461 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article incorrectly asserts (in the first sentence) that most cultures had slaves. This is totally untrue. Taino did not have slaves. Olmecs did not have slaves. Yoruba did not have slaves, nor did more of the early ancient cultures in the land we call North America, and South America. Further, the first paragraphs is too politely written. It should give the terms: "Genocide" "crime", inhumane", etc. It approaches slavery in very nonchalant manner, almost validating it. -- 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:39DC:A8CF:93F5:7C8E ( talk) 09:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It says almost all, not all. 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:DDB7:637E:D691:39FF ( talk) 16:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
In this article, it is said that "Slavery was not usually hereditary". My question is, how does anyone know this? As to the word, "usually", I ask, what about those instances? How would those be different from any other act of slavery, including the African slave trade? And if this is true, then why do numbers of slaves or how people became slaves against will matter? Hereditary slavery has likely been around since prehistory, and it is discussed in early Chinese texts, at least as early as a few hundred years before year 0 AD. Should it be considered that many males taken captive by Islamic slavers were castrated? It was not unheard of for the rape-produced children born to enslaved women to be killed by them, as well.
In the section for the Americas, why does this article focus almost exclusively on African slavery in the Americas? So much effort went into that aspect of New World slavery, yet comparatively, exceedingly little went into indigenous slavery, slaves which were the first to make the Transatlantic voyage. Native enslavement was just as brutal, if not possibly more so because they were seen as being highly expendable (de las Casas is a good source).
The transportation of slaves across the Atlantic between the Old World and the New World began with the transportation of indigenous peoples of the Americas being sent to Spain. Why is this exclusively associated with transportation of Africans to the Americas? The route was used prior to the 16th century (the time given in this article) when indigenous people were taken to Ferdinand II and Isabella I.
The slave trade was very sad. I hope the people involved were punished for their mistakes.
--I agree with you re punishment. Of course they could be punished. Even if a government were involved, we could punish the government officials, like we did to Hitler, etc. Some of the responses here seek to detract from your position with illogical responses. -- 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:39DC:A8CF:93F5:7C8E ( talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean you hope they were punish for their mistakes? Punished by who? Their governments supported this. That is how they were able to do all of this. Also how do you punish someone who has contributed to the system of owning and abusing someone? Civ1hk ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This information was once part of the "
slavery" article. However, when the article was cleaned up and reduced in size, most of the material in this section was dumped without being distributed into other articles. There's some very good material here, including information I was looking for earlier today and not finding. I resurrected this article from version "22:23, 11 July 2006; 67.188.173.95", the last revision of this material before it was dumped. I have also changed several redirects from "slavery" to "history of slavery".
Peter G Werner 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a lot more about slavery and islam, i recommend Islam's black slavery by Ronald Segal. There is a longer history and roughly the same numbers transported, ie. 12-14 million. It seems ridicolous not to mention this, maybe slightly political correct(?)
delted weasle words and direct POV which is trying to white wash the transatlantic slave trade by demonizing Arabs and redirecting focus. Just state the facts, we dont need any POV comparisions, site multi sources. I will tag this section because it is not neutral. The fact that it is called Arab slave trade over and over again is a bias. when even indians and chinese were involved. there is also virtually no ref for the BIG statements.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The Muslim Slave Trade was horrible, but not that horrible. They often took in Christians as well, and wars weren't started in Africa for slaves, unlike other trades. 86.161.6.178 ( talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
History of slavery. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of slavery. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I added to the Civil War section... Rebel leaders Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest and others were slavers and slave-traders. 2601:580:1:235:2C15:3245:8D43:A133 ( talk) 12:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This recent edit by Grufo seems to problematic for several reasons:
India is home to the largest number of slaves globally, with 8 million, followed by China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Iran (1.29 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000). Both these are from 2018. The GSI presents a 2019 list of countries "taking the least action to respond to modern slavery". I think that all three might belong in the article body, but none should be in the lead. Having 3 lists of 10 countries each in the lead would be make it unreadable.
20% of the population of Mauritania, are currently enslaved. The source given is from 2011 and contradicts several sources that put the % of population in slavery at 2.1%: United Nations, Guardian and the Global Slavery Index. This discrepency should be discussed in the body of the article, but this article's lead is not the place for it.
VR talk 02:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit removed the entire section on the Soviet Union. Yet, there are many works on slavery in the USSR, including a book called Stalin's Slave Camps: an indictment of Modern Slavery, which was positively reviewed by Hugo Dewar in International Affairs and call's Stalin's penal manpower a "modern form of slavery" and "an integral part of the Soviet Union". A chapter on forced labor during the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany appears in the The Cambridge World History of Slavery vol 4. Illness and Inhumanity in Stalin's Gulag also documents slavery in the USSR. We also have articles like Stalin's legacy lives on in city that slaves built. The katorga is also considered a form of slave labor. VR talk 10:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Arab or Islamic slave trade lasted much longer than the Atlantic or European slave trade: "It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four."
Arab slave trade started before the 6th century, and before the advent of Islam. The European slave trade didn't start with the Atlantic slave trade either. Should this be removed? Ibrahim5361 ( talk) 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Ducky008 asks in the summaries of various recently-reverted edits:
How do I obtain consensus? I invite all readers to go through each of the edits made and compare them to the immediately previous version instead of just blanket reversing. It reads better and more appropriately reflects the current views of society towards the victims of these crimes. While the English language tends to favor brevity, in this instance the extra word in the edits is much needed.
This is NOT about "righting a great wrong", no facts have been changed or altered, no opinions have been asserted, and no sources of information have been misconstrued or disrupted. These edits apply a more appropriate common noun for the victims of a heinous crime, as opposed to the dehumanizing noun provided by the perpetrators. The length of time something is wrong, does not make it right.
This is not about "political correctness" this is about respecting victims of a crime by providing them a more proper title of who they are. The English language is always evolving as we get a better understanding of the impact our written and spoken word has on people. This is a long overdue correction to how we refer to these victims.
This refers to Ducky008's repeated substitution of the words "enslaved people" for the shorter single word "slaves" generally used in the sources. In this edit war they have been supported by @ Drmies: while @ MrOllie: @ Equivamp: @ ThoughtIdRetired: and myself have disagreed. To answer the question: we should obtain consensus by discussion on this page. Hunc ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
What I hear...is not what I said. There is every reason to use "police officer" as there are women who carry out this role. That is correct use of English.
Your BBC article is from 2005- no, the news report is from January of this year - it has been all over the local news where I live. This is the sort of thing that is happening now, for which we need absolutely crystal clear language to help stop it happening.
"Slavers" is a different use of the word, as are "slave ship" and "slave trade"."Slave trade" is one of the changes made in the original edit.
"Making this word taboo" is just so much drivel,- no, it isn't. If you introduce barriers to people talking about things, you make education more difficult. Why do you think there have been, in recent history, big attempts to get people talking about mental illness, sexually transmitted diseases, financial problems and all the other taboo subjects that exist in the world.
Might as well re-introduce the n-word.I am not sure where that falls in the spectrum of treating other editors with respect, but for the avoidance of doubt, when I heard someone (in Montgomery Al) refer to one of his employees by that term, in the man's presence, I was horrified in a way that I have not felt before or since. Please do not make presumptions about my attitude to that sort of thing.
Do you want us to take a poll among those who have been enslaved?Clearly, I do not know your circumstances, but I guess you are talking about your ancestors. Yet, as I have pointed out above, I live in a community where someone has been convicted of keeping a slave. This is a big subject and something on which anyone with any trace of humanity to them has the right to an opinion. Neither of these points are relevant, though, because as stated above, the overwhelming factor in this has to be what reliable sources say. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
After reflecting on this a bit and reading the above discussion, I now support using 'enslaved people' wherever possible. I was wrong to revert the changes. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy that directly answers the question of "slaves" versus "enslaved persons". On common usage, the Manual of Style does give a pointer to Google ngrams:
I really did not think there would be this much push back to a thoughtful edit. These types of edits are occurring across Wikipedia, and the trend is going this way beyond Wikipedia.
If the consensus wants to make [ | History of slavery]the last bastion for the word slave, I think you are battling the inevitable. I don't think the word should be taboo, I don't think people should be shamed for using it, but in a reference website such as this, why not implement or encourage the use of more thoughtful words for users who are coming here to learn (again, we are not setting this trend). Ducky008 ( talk) 19:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
:: User:Hunc, I do not believe this fits the category of "righting a great wrong" as you have mentioned a couple times now. No substantive information has been changed, no opinions have been made, no sources have been altered, no questionable sources have been cited. These edits are not publishing original thought or original research. These edits are not spreading the word about an unfairly suppressed theory. The edits are not explaining the truth or reality of a current political, religious or moral issue. This is not about altering facts. We are pursuing a neutral way of presenting the information. You may not be in favor of these edits, but that does not elevate them to the level of attempting to "right a great wrong" at least per the link you provided. Ducky008 ( talk) 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Hunc User:ThoughtIdRetired User:MrOllie User:Drmies, The following is a quote from the SUNY link: "In the latest post, “Slaves vs Enslaved People-The Subtle, Strong Powers of Words” the author Andi says “By changing from the use of a name – slaves – to an adjective – enslaved– we grant these individuals an identity as people and use a term to describe their position in society rather than reducing them to that position." "In a small but important way, we carry them forward as people, not the property that they were in that time." original source - Andilit.com - Slaves vs Enslaved People In a sense, this is at the heart of these edits that are taking place here and elsewhere (also note, I was not the first person to make such edits to this article). I find it hard to believe any scholar, educator or academic would not get behind this reasoning if they weren't already. I mean really, think of how this group of people are still being objectified as property when referred to as slaves, the same title their owners gave them, a knee-jerk response may be "well that is what they were", to which we should all see they were more than that. I don't know if there is much more to say about this including what is discussed in some of the original source publishing's that I have posted above; the change will come at some point. Good points were made for both sides, in my opinion the biggest thing weighing against a change is the fact it is still widely used, without hesitation, even by descendants of enslaved people as User:ThoughtIdRetired discussed above. Ducky008 ( talk) 23:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
JSTOR - Spaces of Enslavement...
JSTOR - A “Complicated Humbug”...
JSTOR - Slaveries of the First Millennium,
JSTOR - Slavery and Freedom in the Shenandoah Valley...,
JSTOR - Surveillance Capitalism in America,
JSTOR - A Short History of Charleston,
JSTOR - Law, Lineage, Gender, and the Lives of Enslaved Indigenous People ...,
JSTOR - The Jamaica Reader: History, Culture, Politics
Ducky008 (
talk) 18:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Why do we need to establish the ratio of the two usages?Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on Reliable Sources. As an article on a history subject, the preferred sources should be academic. Where there are differences between academics, then the editor should discover what the academic consensus is. Ideally that would be from a review of the subject in an academic journal. That doesn't appear to be available here. That is the reason for trying to assess the degree to which the language in question is being used. The outcome of these rules is that Wikipedia is a follower of any change, not a leader in that change – which appears to be what User:MrOllie is advocating.
"1. The slaves wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
"2. James, Robert, and John wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
"3. The enslaved young men wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
Question--> Turns out you are one of these enslaved persons discussed in the sentence! How would you want to be referred to, presently, or 100 years from now, rank the three sentences? What if one of the persons in the boat is not you but your grandfather, father, uncle, brother, cousin, nephew, best friend? Maybe you don't care, maybe these all seem the same to you. How do each of these sentences make you feel about the people in the boat when you read each sentence. No feelings, no difference, doesn't matter? How does each sentence impact your thoughts on slavery? Let's just go with the status quo?
Ducky008 (
talk) 01:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Why were my edits reverted in this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1136846996
It doesn’t seem to be related to the disagreements between you people Bobisland ( talk) 13:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
"Enslaved person/people" back to "slave(s)"edit. Because of a later dummy edit, this required restoring a version rather than simply reverting, but I somehow landed on the wrong version; I haven't worked out how. Thanks for questioning it. NebY ( talk) 13:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok I’ll just wait a bit until you people conclude the dispute Bobisland ( talk) 08:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Slave trade 41.170.85.178 ( talk) 10:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I received your message. Just to be clear: from the wiki page of Liutprand there is written that it is of longobard origin, while here it is written: "italian ambassador"; I think that for coherence the nationality change should remain. 62.10.58.107 ( talk) 20:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Slaves were held by evil traders that made them.work on the plantations
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ridge1028 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Brooklyncox22 ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It is deceptive not to mention that most enslaved Africans were enslaved by other Africans from different ethnic groups and tribes 2601:589:407F:3B95:956F:D495:247D:2EEA ( talk) 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Taksen, please review this edit of yours. You inserted this paragraph:
“ | For the slave trade on Spanish America bankers and trading companies actually had to pay the Spanish king for the license, called the Asiento de Negros, but an unknown amount of the trade was illegal. After 1670 when the Spanish Empire declined substantially they outsourced part of the slave trade to the Dutch (1685-1687), the Portuguese, the French (1698-1713) and the English (1713-1750), also providing Dutch, British and French America from the Caribbean islands were there organized depots. | ” |
Did you mean the slave trade *in* instead of *on* Spanish America? And what does “providing Dutch, British and French America from the Caribbean islands were there organized depots” mean? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The current second paragraph of the lead begins
The Origins section argues
The referencing of that lead sentence highlights that it's not a summary of the body per WP:LEAD, and the references are troubling. The first source (Smith et al) finds and examines wealth inequality within hunter-gatherer populations, includes a table showing hereditary slavery in 24% of a sample of hunter-gatherer societies, argues for "a reassessment of the view that hunter-gatherers (with a few obvious exceptions) are characterized by pervasive equality in wealth and life chances" and comments that among hunter-gatherers, "the smaller set of sedentary high-density foragers [...] includes societies (e.g., Northwest Coast, Calusa) with slavery, hereditary nobility, stores of durable valuables, and other features strongly related to intergenerational wealth transmission." It doesn't support that part of the lead.
The second source for that lead sentence, Wanzola, is self-published through Xlibris. Our link takes us straight to the page, published in 2012, where the first seven sentences (after the first three words) are a straight copy of this article as it was in 2010. I'll remove that citation.
Those Origins sentences are entirely sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica, which is disappointing. Good specialist secondary sources should be available for this, if it should stand. The hatnote for that section refers to Slavery in antiquity, where none of these claims are made. I'm worried that Britannica's theorising about the prehistoric origins of slavery may be contrary to studies of hunter-gatherers and even perhaps too much in keeping with stereotypes of primitive egalitarianism. Is it sufficient for us? And should we retain that lead sentence at all? NebY ( talk) 19:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Summary characteristics of hunter-gatherer societies in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCSS). [...] Social stratification [: ...] Hereditary slavery 24% [...].
Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations as slavery depends on a system of social stratification.
[...] for slavery to flourish, social differentiation or stratification was essential. Also essential was an economic surplus, for slaves were often consumption goods who themselves had to be maintained rather than productive assets who generated income for their owner. Surplus was also essential in slave systems where the owners expected economic gain from slave ownership.
Ordinarily there had to be a perceived labour shortage, for otherwise it is unlikely that most people would bother to acquire or to keep slaves. Free land, and more generally, open resources, were often a prerequisite for slavery; in most cases where there were no open resources, non-slaves could be found who would fulfill the same social functions at lower cost. Last, some centralized governmental institutions willing to enforce slave laws had to exist, or else the property aspects of slavery were likely to be chimerical.
Why were my edits reverted alongside the reverts of this discussion? Bobisland ( talk) 13:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
"Enslaved person/people" back to "slave(s)"edit. Because of a later dummy edit, this required restoring a version rather than simply reverting, but I somehow landed on the wrong version; I haven't yet worked out how. Thanks for questioning it. NebY ( talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The article states that Spain was the first country in abolishing slavery in 1542, but it omits that the New Laws were never completely enforced and only referred to indigenous slavery. Black slavery was pretty much alive in the Spanish Empire well into XIX century.
Also, at some point it states that slavery in Brazil was not race-based without a source (race was the main factor in slavery in Brazil as it is clear by the influx of enslaved Africans entering the colony fron the Portuguese outposts in what is now modern Angola).
Also, the different sections have a big imbalance with respect to the information covered. For instance, slavery in America and European colonies is much less addressed than other slavery, it does not seem to have a clear and common axis for the information, and it has an scarcity of sources. 181.53.12.244 ( talk) 04:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Slavery 160.238.138.3 ( talk) 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 15 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayoralg ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Cuttera24 ( talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Due to the same slave trades taking part in multiple continents it created a situation on this wiki page that they’re repeated between continent tabs that have their own separate information, I believe it’d bring much more organization chronological wise and easier reading to organize the history of slavery based on date rather than continent Bobisland ( talk) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The Arab slave trade led to the enslavement of 17 million individuals.[1] The trans-atlantic slave trade led to the enslavement of just under that number. In the lede, this first is given one sentence, the second 150+ words. Unless anyone objects, I will give them equal weight.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/26500685 DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from History of slavery appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 August 2006. A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/August. |
To-do list for History of slavery:
Priority 3
|
A summary of this article appears in slavery. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of History of Slavery was copied or moved into Penal labour with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1461 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The article incorrectly asserts (in the first sentence) that most cultures had slaves. This is totally untrue. Taino did not have slaves. Olmecs did not have slaves. Yoruba did not have slaves, nor did more of the early ancient cultures in the land we call North America, and South America. Further, the first paragraphs is too politely written. It should give the terms: "Genocide" "crime", inhumane", etc. It approaches slavery in very nonchalant manner, almost validating it. -- 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:39DC:A8CF:93F5:7C8E ( talk) 09:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It says almost all, not all. 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:DDB7:637E:D691:39FF ( talk) 16:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
In this article, it is said that "Slavery was not usually hereditary". My question is, how does anyone know this? As to the word, "usually", I ask, what about those instances? How would those be different from any other act of slavery, including the African slave trade? And if this is true, then why do numbers of slaves or how people became slaves against will matter? Hereditary slavery has likely been around since prehistory, and it is discussed in early Chinese texts, at least as early as a few hundred years before year 0 AD. Should it be considered that many males taken captive by Islamic slavers were castrated? It was not unheard of for the rape-produced children born to enslaved women to be killed by them, as well.
In the section for the Americas, why does this article focus almost exclusively on African slavery in the Americas? So much effort went into that aspect of New World slavery, yet comparatively, exceedingly little went into indigenous slavery, slaves which were the first to make the Transatlantic voyage. Native enslavement was just as brutal, if not possibly more so because they were seen as being highly expendable (de las Casas is a good source).
The transportation of slaves across the Atlantic between the Old World and the New World began with the transportation of indigenous peoples of the Americas being sent to Spain. Why is this exclusively associated with transportation of Africans to the Americas? The route was used prior to the 16th century (the time given in this article) when indigenous people were taken to Ferdinand II and Isabella I.
The slave trade was very sad. I hope the people involved were punished for their mistakes.
--I agree with you re punishment. Of course they could be punished. Even if a government were involved, we could punish the government officials, like we did to Hitler, etc. Some of the responses here seek to detract from your position with illogical responses. -- 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:39DC:A8CF:93F5:7C8E ( talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean you hope they were punish for their mistakes? Punished by who? Their governments supported this. That is how they were able to do all of this. Also how do you punish someone who has contributed to the system of owning and abusing someone? Civ1hk ( talk) 16:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This information was once part of the "
slavery" article. However, when the article was cleaned up and reduced in size, most of the material in this section was dumped without being distributed into other articles. There's some very good material here, including information I was looking for earlier today and not finding. I resurrected this article from version "22:23, 11 July 2006; 67.188.173.95", the last revision of this material before it was dumped. I have also changed several redirects from "slavery" to "history of slavery".
Peter G Werner 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a lot more about slavery and islam, i recommend Islam's black slavery by Ronald Segal. There is a longer history and roughly the same numbers transported, ie. 12-14 million. It seems ridicolous not to mention this, maybe slightly political correct(?)
delted weasle words and direct POV which is trying to white wash the transatlantic slave trade by demonizing Arabs and redirecting focus. Just state the facts, we dont need any POV comparisions, site multi sources. I will tag this section because it is not neutral. The fact that it is called Arab slave trade over and over again is a bias. when even indians and chinese were involved. there is also virtually no ref for the BIG statements.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 22:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The Muslim Slave Trade was horrible, but not that horrible. They often took in Christians as well, and wars weren't started in Africa for slaves, unlike other trades. 86.161.6.178 ( talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
History of slavery. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
History of slavery. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I added to the Civil War section... Rebel leaders Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest and others were slavers and slave-traders. 2601:580:1:235:2C15:3245:8D43:A133 ( talk) 12:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This recent edit by Grufo seems to problematic for several reasons:
India is home to the largest number of slaves globally, with 8 million, followed by China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Iran (1.29 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000). Both these are from 2018. The GSI presents a 2019 list of countries "taking the least action to respond to modern slavery". I think that all three might belong in the article body, but none should be in the lead. Having 3 lists of 10 countries each in the lead would be make it unreadable.
20% of the population of Mauritania, are currently enslaved. The source given is from 2011 and contradicts several sources that put the % of population in slavery at 2.1%: United Nations, Guardian and the Global Slavery Index. This discrepency should be discussed in the body of the article, but this article's lead is not the place for it.
VR talk 02:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit removed the entire section on the Soviet Union. Yet, there are many works on slavery in the USSR, including a book called Stalin's Slave Camps: an indictment of Modern Slavery, which was positively reviewed by Hugo Dewar in International Affairs and call's Stalin's penal manpower a "modern form of slavery" and "an integral part of the Soviet Union". A chapter on forced labor during the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany appears in the The Cambridge World History of Slavery vol 4. Illness and Inhumanity in Stalin's Gulag also documents slavery in the USSR. We also have articles like Stalin's legacy lives on in city that slaves built. The katorga is also considered a form of slave labor. VR talk 10:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Arab or Islamic slave trade lasted much longer than the Atlantic or European slave trade: "It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four."
Arab slave trade started before the 6th century, and before the advent of Islam. The European slave trade didn't start with the Atlantic slave trade either. Should this be removed? Ibrahim5361 ( talk) 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Ducky008 asks in the summaries of various recently-reverted edits:
How do I obtain consensus? I invite all readers to go through each of the edits made and compare them to the immediately previous version instead of just blanket reversing. It reads better and more appropriately reflects the current views of society towards the victims of these crimes. While the English language tends to favor brevity, in this instance the extra word in the edits is much needed.
This is NOT about "righting a great wrong", no facts have been changed or altered, no opinions have been asserted, and no sources of information have been misconstrued or disrupted. These edits apply a more appropriate common noun for the victims of a heinous crime, as opposed to the dehumanizing noun provided by the perpetrators. The length of time something is wrong, does not make it right.
This is not about "political correctness" this is about respecting victims of a crime by providing them a more proper title of who they are. The English language is always evolving as we get a better understanding of the impact our written and spoken word has on people. This is a long overdue correction to how we refer to these victims.
This refers to Ducky008's repeated substitution of the words "enslaved people" for the shorter single word "slaves" generally used in the sources. In this edit war they have been supported by @ Drmies: while @ MrOllie: @ Equivamp: @ ThoughtIdRetired: and myself have disagreed. To answer the question: we should obtain consensus by discussion on this page. Hunc ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
What I hear...is not what I said. There is every reason to use "police officer" as there are women who carry out this role. That is correct use of English.
Your BBC article is from 2005- no, the news report is from January of this year - it has been all over the local news where I live. This is the sort of thing that is happening now, for which we need absolutely crystal clear language to help stop it happening.
"Slavers" is a different use of the word, as are "slave ship" and "slave trade"."Slave trade" is one of the changes made in the original edit.
"Making this word taboo" is just so much drivel,- no, it isn't. If you introduce barriers to people talking about things, you make education more difficult. Why do you think there have been, in recent history, big attempts to get people talking about mental illness, sexually transmitted diseases, financial problems and all the other taboo subjects that exist in the world.
Might as well re-introduce the n-word.I am not sure where that falls in the spectrum of treating other editors with respect, but for the avoidance of doubt, when I heard someone (in Montgomery Al) refer to one of his employees by that term, in the man's presence, I was horrified in a way that I have not felt before or since. Please do not make presumptions about my attitude to that sort of thing.
Do you want us to take a poll among those who have been enslaved?Clearly, I do not know your circumstances, but I guess you are talking about your ancestors. Yet, as I have pointed out above, I live in a community where someone has been convicted of keeping a slave. This is a big subject and something on which anyone with any trace of humanity to them has the right to an opinion. Neither of these points are relevant, though, because as stated above, the overwhelming factor in this has to be what reliable sources say. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
After reflecting on this a bit and reading the above discussion, I now support using 'enslaved people' wherever possible. I was wrong to revert the changes. - MrOllie ( talk) 20:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy that directly answers the question of "slaves" versus "enslaved persons". On common usage, the Manual of Style does give a pointer to Google ngrams:
I really did not think there would be this much push back to a thoughtful edit. These types of edits are occurring across Wikipedia, and the trend is going this way beyond Wikipedia.
If the consensus wants to make [ | History of slavery]the last bastion for the word slave, I think you are battling the inevitable. I don't think the word should be taboo, I don't think people should be shamed for using it, but in a reference website such as this, why not implement or encourage the use of more thoughtful words for users who are coming here to learn (again, we are not setting this trend). Ducky008 ( talk) 19:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
:: User:Hunc, I do not believe this fits the category of "righting a great wrong" as you have mentioned a couple times now. No substantive information has been changed, no opinions have been made, no sources have been altered, no questionable sources have been cited. These edits are not publishing original thought or original research. These edits are not spreading the word about an unfairly suppressed theory. The edits are not explaining the truth or reality of a current political, religious or moral issue. This is not about altering facts. We are pursuing a neutral way of presenting the information. You may not be in favor of these edits, but that does not elevate them to the level of attempting to "right a great wrong" at least per the link you provided. Ducky008 ( talk) 20:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Hunc User:ThoughtIdRetired User:MrOllie User:Drmies, The following is a quote from the SUNY link: "In the latest post, “Slaves vs Enslaved People-The Subtle, Strong Powers of Words” the author Andi says “By changing from the use of a name – slaves – to an adjective – enslaved– we grant these individuals an identity as people and use a term to describe their position in society rather than reducing them to that position." "In a small but important way, we carry them forward as people, not the property that they were in that time." original source - Andilit.com - Slaves vs Enslaved People In a sense, this is at the heart of these edits that are taking place here and elsewhere (also note, I was not the first person to make such edits to this article). I find it hard to believe any scholar, educator or academic would not get behind this reasoning if they weren't already. I mean really, think of how this group of people are still being objectified as property when referred to as slaves, the same title their owners gave them, a knee-jerk response may be "well that is what they were", to which we should all see they were more than that. I don't know if there is much more to say about this including what is discussed in some of the original source publishing's that I have posted above; the change will come at some point. Good points were made for both sides, in my opinion the biggest thing weighing against a change is the fact it is still widely used, without hesitation, even by descendants of enslaved people as User:ThoughtIdRetired discussed above. Ducky008 ( talk) 23:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
JSTOR - Spaces of Enslavement...
JSTOR - A “Complicated Humbug”...
JSTOR - Slaveries of the First Millennium,
JSTOR - Slavery and Freedom in the Shenandoah Valley...,
JSTOR - Surveillance Capitalism in America,
JSTOR - A Short History of Charleston,
JSTOR - Law, Lineage, Gender, and the Lives of Enslaved Indigenous People ...,
JSTOR - The Jamaica Reader: History, Culture, Politics
Ducky008 (
talk) 18:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Why do we need to establish the ratio of the two usages?Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on Reliable Sources. As an article on a history subject, the preferred sources should be academic. Where there are differences between academics, then the editor should discover what the academic consensus is. Ideally that would be from a review of the subject in an academic journal. That doesn't appear to be available here. That is the reason for trying to assess the degree to which the language in question is being used. The outcome of these rules is that Wikipedia is a follower of any change, not a leader in that change – which appears to be what User:MrOllie is advocating.
"1. The slaves wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
"2. James, Robert, and John wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
"3. The enslaved young men wore chains and were huddled in the bottom of the boat to stay warm"
Question--> Turns out you are one of these enslaved persons discussed in the sentence! How would you want to be referred to, presently, or 100 years from now, rank the three sentences? What if one of the persons in the boat is not you but your grandfather, father, uncle, brother, cousin, nephew, best friend? Maybe you don't care, maybe these all seem the same to you. How do each of these sentences make you feel about the people in the boat when you read each sentence. No feelings, no difference, doesn't matter? How does each sentence impact your thoughts on slavery? Let's just go with the status quo?
Ducky008 (
talk) 01:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Why were my edits reverted in this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1136846996
It doesn’t seem to be related to the disagreements between you people Bobisland ( talk) 13:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
"Enslaved person/people" back to "slave(s)"edit. Because of a later dummy edit, this required restoring a version rather than simply reverting, but I somehow landed on the wrong version; I haven't worked out how. Thanks for questioning it. NebY ( talk) 13:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok I’ll just wait a bit until you people conclude the dispute Bobisland ( talk) 08:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Slave trade 41.170.85.178 ( talk) 10:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I received your message. Just to be clear: from the wiki page of Liutprand there is written that it is of longobard origin, while here it is written: "italian ambassador"; I think that for coherence the nationality change should remain. 62.10.58.107 ( talk) 20:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Slaves were held by evil traders that made them.work on the plantations
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ridge1028 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Brooklyncox22 ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It is deceptive not to mention that most enslaved Africans were enslaved by other Africans from different ethnic groups and tribes 2601:589:407F:3B95:956F:D495:247D:2EEA ( talk) 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Taksen, please review this edit of yours. You inserted this paragraph:
“ | For the slave trade on Spanish America bankers and trading companies actually had to pay the Spanish king for the license, called the Asiento de Negros, but an unknown amount of the trade was illegal. After 1670 when the Spanish Empire declined substantially they outsourced part of the slave trade to the Dutch (1685-1687), the Portuguese, the French (1698-1713) and the English (1713-1750), also providing Dutch, British and French America from the Caribbean islands were there organized depots. | ” |
Did you mean the slave trade *in* instead of *on* Spanish America? And what does “providing Dutch, British and French America from the Caribbean islands were there organized depots” mean? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The current second paragraph of the lead begins
The Origins section argues
The referencing of that lead sentence highlights that it's not a summary of the body per WP:LEAD, and the references are troubling. The first source (Smith et al) finds and examines wealth inequality within hunter-gatherer populations, includes a table showing hereditary slavery in 24% of a sample of hunter-gatherer societies, argues for "a reassessment of the view that hunter-gatherers (with a few obvious exceptions) are characterized by pervasive equality in wealth and life chances" and comments that among hunter-gatherers, "the smaller set of sedentary high-density foragers [...] includes societies (e.g., Northwest Coast, Calusa) with slavery, hereditary nobility, stores of durable valuables, and other features strongly related to intergenerational wealth transmission." It doesn't support that part of the lead.
The second source for that lead sentence, Wanzola, is self-published through Xlibris. Our link takes us straight to the page, published in 2012, where the first seven sentences (after the first three words) are a straight copy of this article as it was in 2010. I'll remove that citation.
Those Origins sentences are entirely sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica, which is disappointing. Good specialist secondary sources should be available for this, if it should stand. The hatnote for that section refers to Slavery in antiquity, where none of these claims are made. I'm worried that Britannica's theorising about the prehistoric origins of slavery may be contrary to studies of hunter-gatherers and even perhaps too much in keeping with stereotypes of primitive egalitarianism. Is it sufficient for us? And should we retain that lead sentence at all? NebY ( talk) 19:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
Summary characteristics of hunter-gatherer societies in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCSS). [...] Social stratification [: ...] Hereditary slavery 24% [...].
Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations as slavery depends on a system of social stratification.
[...] for slavery to flourish, social differentiation or stratification was essential. Also essential was an economic surplus, for slaves were often consumption goods who themselves had to be maintained rather than productive assets who generated income for their owner. Surplus was also essential in slave systems where the owners expected economic gain from slave ownership.
Ordinarily there had to be a perceived labour shortage, for otherwise it is unlikely that most people would bother to acquire or to keep slaves. Free land, and more generally, open resources, were often a prerequisite for slavery; in most cases where there were no open resources, non-slaves could be found who would fulfill the same social functions at lower cost. Last, some centralized governmental institutions willing to enforce slave laws had to exist, or else the property aspects of slavery were likely to be chimerical.
Why were my edits reverted alongside the reverts of this discussion? Bobisland ( talk) 13:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
"Enslaved person/people" back to "slave(s)"edit. Because of a later dummy edit, this required restoring a version rather than simply reverting, but I somehow landed on the wrong version; I haven't yet worked out how. Thanks for questioning it. NebY ( talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The article states that Spain was the first country in abolishing slavery in 1542, but it omits that the New Laws were never completely enforced and only referred to indigenous slavery. Black slavery was pretty much alive in the Spanish Empire well into XIX century.
Also, at some point it states that slavery in Brazil was not race-based without a source (race was the main factor in slavery in Brazil as it is clear by the influx of enslaved Africans entering the colony fron the Portuguese outposts in what is now modern Angola).
Also, the different sections have a big imbalance with respect to the information covered. For instance, slavery in America and European colonies is much less addressed than other slavery, it does not seem to have a clear and common axis for the information, and it has an scarcity of sources. 181.53.12.244 ( talk) 04:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Slavery 160.238.138.3 ( talk) 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 15 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayoralg ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Cuttera24 ( talk) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Due to the same slave trades taking part in multiple continents it created a situation on this wiki page that they’re repeated between continent tabs that have their own separate information, I believe it’d bring much more organization chronological wise and easier reading to organize the history of slavery based on date rather than continent Bobisland ( talk) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The Arab slave trade led to the enslavement of 17 million individuals.[1] The trans-atlantic slave trade led to the enslavement of just under that number. In the lede, this first is given one sentence, the second 150+ words. Unless anyone objects, I will give them equal weight.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/26500685 DenverCoder9 ( talk) 04:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)