QuoteReplyTopic: Slavery Posted: 04-Oct-2010 at 20:52
I am concerned our biased knowledge of slavery, can lead to further injustices when discussing Muslims and their history, or Turkish history. Slavery can vary around the world, and even in the same community and period of time, slavery can vary. Sometimes the lives of slaves was better their peers, and there has even been competition to be a chosen for slavery, because of the benefits of slavery. This is not about justifying racist slavery of the southern US states, nor the slavery supported by the Christian bible beginning with God saying only Jews could not be slaves, but they could own them, and then giving a different legal standard for dealing with slaves. Some slavery is unquestionable worse than other slavery. On the other hand, Mongols treated their slaves as equals. And I kind of like the ancient Aztec system of making slaves of criminals, and if a criminal offends for the third time, he is sacrificed to the gods.
I don't know if we can have an unbiased discussion about slavery, but I think it would benefit us to try. This site gives us a different way of think about slavery.
I agree with you, especially on the part about slavery not always being a bad thing. Gladiators in ancient Rome were treated like kings when they weren't fighting and even though they could have their freedom after about 6 years(correct me if I'm wrong) most of them would stay in the gladiator line of work. But I don't understand why this would affect Moslem or Turkish history.
I agree with you, especially on the part about slavery not always being a bad thing. Gladiators in ancient Rome were treated like kings when they weren't fighting and even though they could have their freedom after about 6 years(correct me if I'm wrong) most of them would stay in the gladiator line of work. But I don't understand why this would affect Muslim or Turkish history.
I really want to reply to everyone but I am out of time. Quickly, I think we need to deal with the fact that Muslims treated their slaves well, and as some chose to be gladiators, some chose to be Muslim slaves, because this was their chance of being educated and having an opportunity to improve their lives. The subject is not just about the slaves life, but also the values and actions of slave owners. Muslims were good slave owners, Christians were not. Why the difference?
I am back:
I think Muslims were good slave owners, because of Zoroastrianism, although changes in the Persian empire, both in lands held and in rulers, and changes to Zoroastrianism, almost completely destroyed the religion. The basic principles of Truth and the Lie and our freedom to chose was carried on. So a slave was someone who could learn the Truth and chose the Truth, and have all the benefits of someone who follows truth. So there were people wanting to become Muslim slaves, and we don't hear much of Muslims slaves revolting or running away. Their slavery did not create the problems that the southern states of the US created.
This Whites using Blacks as slave was very different The Blacks were made Christian to increase their value, but being a Christian didn't translate to "being one of us" or any hope of freedom. Also when anti slavery sentiment increased, it was forbidden to allow a Black person to read. It was held an ignorant Black slave would be easier to control.
But for the whipping of slaves, Christianity teaches we are born with Eve's curse and they held it important to not spare the rod. Even members of a ships crew were subject to being whipped, and parents attempted to beat the devil out their children. Christians used corporal punishment. In Britain the poor sold their children to industry, and these children were beaten, made to sleep on the floor in shifts, and if a child tried to run, s/he was made to work and sleep and chains. In these factories and in places where slaves were used for sugar plantations, the lives and children and slaves was short. This was justified with the bible and a belief in our evil nature. Christianity stressed the importance of obedience, and the reward after this life. Bottom line is, we should not ignore the difference between our slavery and Muslim slavery, because this leads to a false understanding of what is so.
The British trade in slavery contributed to the welfare and higher level of standard of living of the people of that country.
While in Muslim countries in general it contributed to the welfare of the slaves i.e the Mamluks of Egypt where slaves who were trained in military service and raised to higher ranks of command
If we define slavery will see that all human history in last 2000 years was nothing else but development and improvement of slavery...Last recession is explicit proof for this claim...
Muslims were good slave owners, Christians were not. Why the difference?
Originally posted by Athena
some chose to be Muslim slaves, because this was their chance of being educated and having an opportunity to improve their lives.
These statments are romanticizations / generalizations. Do you have any examples of people volunteering to be Muslim slaves?
Originally posted by Athena
This Whites using Blacks as slave was very different The Blacks were made Christian to increase their value, but being a Christian didn't translate to "being one of us" or any hope of freedom.
No, that is not true at all. Christian based slavery in the U.S. was not monolithic. Some U.S. owned slaves were educted, freed and later became slave owners themselves.
Here is a quote from Frederick Douglas (black abolitionist) lamenting that many free blacks and slaves did feel that they "were one of us"
Frederick Douglas reported, "There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels."
A report by a Union official. Once again, these slaves did feel that they were "one of us" or had a hopes of freedom:
Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
In Britain the poor sold their children to industry, and these children were beaten, made to sleep on the floor in shifts, and if a child tried to run, s/he was made to work and sleep and chains. In these factories and in places where slaves were used for sugar plantations, the lives and children and slaves was short.
As do Muslim Pakistanis today. When faced wth similar economic pressures combined with a low definition of individual or emloyment rights, Muslims make the same choice as Christians.
This was justified with the bible and a belief in our evil nature. Christianity stressed the importance of obedience, and the reward after this life.
Islam is also an Abrahamic religion and shares many of the same tehological traits as Christianity. Both state that men are inherently sinful and obediance. The difference appears to be in Islam, one can be sufficinienlty repentent through ones own efforts. In Christianity, this is not possible except throught he grace of Christ.
Or a hundred dollar donation to your favorite priest. Absolution ain't cheap.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Muslims were good slave owners, Christians were not. Why the difference?
Originally posted by Athena
some chose to be Muslim slaves, because this was their chance of being educated and having an opportunity to improve their lives.
These statments are romanticizations / generalizations. Do you have any examples of people volunteering to be Muslim slaves?
I can not remember the country so I can not access the information, but there was a TV program about the competition to be Muslims slaves, when this was a clear economic advantage. However, here is another a view of Islamic slavery I found while googling for the information I did want
This Whites using Blacks as slave was very different The Blacks were made Christian to increase their value, but being a Christian didn't translate to "being one of us" or any hope of freedom.
No, that is not true at all. Christian based slavery in the U.S. was not monolithic. Some U.S. owned slaves were educted, freed and later became slave owners themselves.
You really should not say the color of the slaves did not make a difference! Britian cleaned up its cities by making indentured slaves out of their unwanted, and sending them off to colonies. These White slaves could expect freedom if they survived, however, Black slaves could not expect their freedom. That a few were granted freedom, does not make freedom an expectation for all. And even those who did realized freedom, did not enjoy equality with Whites, but are still struggling with the complications of slavery and segregation. And as for Frederick Douglas argumenet, didn't he make that argument because Blacks were not accepted as equals?
Here is a quote from Frederick Douglas (black abolitionist) lamenting that many free blacks and slaves did feel that they "were one of us"
Frederick Douglas reported, "There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels."
A report by a Union official. Once again, these slaves did feel that they were "one of us" or had a hopes of freedom:
Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
In Britain the poor sold their children to industry, and these children were beaten, made to sleep on the floor in shifts, and if a child tried to run, s/he was made to work and sleep and chains. In these factories and in places where slaves were used for sugar plantations, the lives and children and slaves was short.
As do Muslim Pakistanis today. When faced wth similar economic pressures combined with a low definition of individual or emloyment rights, Muslims make the same choice as Christians.
Why are you even arguing with me, when we have agreement?
[Quote]
Originally posted by Athena
This was justified with the bible and a belief in our evil nature. Christianity stressed the importance of obedience, and the reward after this life.
Islam is also an Abrahamic religion and shares many of the same tehological traits as Christianity. Both state that men are inherently sinful and obediance. The difference appears to be in Islam, one can be sufficinienlty repentent through ones own efforts. In Christianity, this is not possible except throught he grace of Christ.
Whatever the religion, God of Abraham religions have justified slavery. What possibly made slavery better is Zoroastrianism, and the idea that man can chose right and those who do, are to be free. This religion enteres Rome and is known to us as Mithraism, and is tied to the US Statue of Liberty.
This is what christianity has to say about slavery:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he
must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the
slave is his property. Exodus 21:20-21
The understanding of slavery was very different in every culture. There is evidence now that slaves in Ancient Egypt might have been voluntary slaves who were paid and lodged in return for their work. Also, some resources mention voluntary slavery in Viking societies. In other cultures such as Sparta, Helots were severely mistreated and given almost no rights. They are hunted once a year by Spartan warriors during the Crypteia.
I agree with all of you. Long time ago whites don't know any other cultures beside their cultures thats why, and the whites treat them like rude and without symphathy.
That was insightful. People do as they do because they do not know any better. I am feeling sympathy for the rulers today who are being over thrown. They know they are doing the best they can, and I am sure they sincerely believe no one can do better. I am afraid the people who are rebelling will realize too late, they can achieve what they hope to achieve. It is not freedom with all the responsibility that goes with it, that most want, but a master, king, or god, who provides for them well.
I am feeling sympathy for the rulers today who are being over thrown. They know they are doing the best they can, and I am sure they sincerely believe no one can do better. I am afraid the people who are rebelling will realize too late, they can achieve what they hope to achieve.
I agree. The leaders of Tunisia and Egypt were not tyrants. Even Khaddaffi, though guilty of terrorism in regards to the plane bombing, was not a tyrant in regards to his own people.
Originally posted by Athena
It is not freedom with all the responsibility that goes with it, that most want, but a master, king, or god, who provides for them well.
Failure to provide is what triggered the rebellions in Egypt and Tunisia. Had those leaders been able to duplicate Singapore (economic opportunity and success in exchange for accepting a one party, one president "democracy"), the rebellions might not of happened.
I am feeling sympathy for the rulers today who are being over thrown. They know they are doing the best they can, and I am sure they sincerely believe no one can do better. I am afraid the people who are rebelling will realize too late, they can achieve what they hope to achieve.
I agree. The leaders of Tunisia and Egypt were not tyrants. Even Khaddaffi, though guilty of terrorism in regards to the plane bombing, was not a tyrant in regards to his own people.
Originally posted by Athena
It is not freedom with all the responsibility that goes with it, that most want, but a master, king, or god, who provides for them well.
Failure to provide is what triggered the rebellions in Egypt and Tunisia. Had those leaders been able to duplicate Singapore (economic opportunity and success in exchange for accepting a one party, one president "democracy"), the rebellions might not of happened.
I agree as well. Mubarak was certainly not a tyrant. He was even a national hero for a while as he served as an Air Chief Marshal during the October war with Israel.
Gaddafi is a total nut though.
Edited by Arab - 06-Apr-2011 at 13:40
"Prayer is when you talk to God. Insanity is when you talk to God and he answers back."
Hey, a good discussion . I am afraid, things will get much worse, as new leaders will not be able to give the people what they want, and things spin out of control. I am not sure of how much longer the US will hold together. The people are still like content cows. They are a little nervous, but their bellies are still full. As the price of gas goes up, the economy will continue to spiral down. We were just told our water and electric bills will increase. This goes with an increase in gas and food prices. If this continues, people might start getting mean, and this is just the beginning. Plenty of people are being told, their pension plans are no good. City governments made promises they can't keep. The hurting is spreading, our mask of civility may fall and break.
A 1920 newspaper warned, "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war". Shortly after, all industrial economies collapsed and the world went to war. The economic improvement all those little countries want, is not possible at this time, and may never be possible. All those people fighting in the streets do not understand economics and can not correct the problem. I don't know how we are going to manage from here.
When I read about the Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison and The Bluest Eye by Tom Morrison, the slavery really scared me 'cause it not only made blacks' life more miserable than ever, but also even led to the spread of indifference among black communities. Their culture's being ravaged and their personality being ruined.
Slavery and genocide are the "inconvenient truth" that we Americans must face. Though we proclaim the freedoms granted us by our constitution, we must remember that those freedoms were not always available to all Americans. Perhaps the collective guilt of that past has made us more able to defend the rights and freedoms of the downtrodden today? After all, we no longer toss people in prison without cause or hope of legal recourse...
Being a slave of a Muslim was not necessarily a good thing, many perhaps millions of Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, either captured in ships or taken in raids. There were slaver raids on the coast of England and a famous one in Baltimore Co Cork.
The idea that it was ‘good’ to be a Muslim slave comes from the idea that many did not wish to return when given the opportunity. You could be freed if a ransom was paid but that was out of reach of most people and communications were difficult, it could easily take years.
If you were lucky you became a slave of a ‘good’ Muslim who viewed it as his duty to look after you (try and convert you) and as the ‘slave’ was an economic asset to improve it so many learnt a trade. As a result when the offer of ‘freedom’ came if they had not converted over the decades they may have made a nice life for themselves, married raised families etc so refused to leave. Many of the ‘worst’ pirates or slavers were actually Christian converts.
However it depended on the ‘owner’ Matthew Pellow an English cabin boy converted and became a slave soldier in the Sultans army. However he converted (which meant he could not be ransomed) only because his master beat and raped him until he did so.
He eventually escaped and returned to Cornwall.
If you were bought or given to the Sultan you would often be worked to death in pretty nasty conditions. The ones who did not want to return were the lucky ones.
Arab slavers searched deep into Africa searching for slaves, many boys would be turned into eunuchs --- and operation that had a ‘50% survival rate’ if you want to put a positive spin on things.
For all that would prefer to be captured by Muslim pirates at least you had a 50-50 chance, the reverse did not apply.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum