DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 15987--------------------------------------------------
The Difference between Islamic and Europe on Slave Treatment
By: antihellenistic Date: October 6, 2022, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
See this quoted sentences from the documentary video :
Source : A Day In The Life Of A White Slave In The Ottoman
Empire - A Day In History (27th January 2022)
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd06PZG3u-o
[quote](Minute 00 : 23 to 00 : 47)
"...unlike most examples of slavery, slaves in the Ottoman
Empire were white. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire stretched
throughout its empire. Even after the attempts to abolish
slavery in the late 19th century (1890s). Especially in the
early centuries the caliphate, slaves taken during small wars or
organized expeditions ordered by the Sultan throughout the
continents of Eastern and Southern Europe, the Balkans and the
Caucasus region."
...
(Minute 02:04 to 02:12)
Almost the available resources for slavery in the Ottoman Empire
were committed to white Western European Christians and those
who were banished from their royal existence.
(Minute 02:34 to 03:10)
First, it is important to know that the teachings of Islam have
a different way of carrying out slavery compared to other
religions and nations which also enslave. The Qur'an explains
that slaves should be treated with kindness and encouraged to be
freed for slaves who are already seen as loyal. The Qur'an also
teaches that the slave is morally equal to the master of his
slave but is of a lower status and is not distinguished from the
color of his skin.
Even so, dark-skinned cripples from "Sub-Saharan Africa"
​​were sold for less than their healthy white
counterparts."
...
(Minutes 04:16 to 04:47)
Most experienced slavery for 7 years for blacks. And 9 years for
those who are white to show their loyalty before they are
released and can get a better job as a foreman or supervisor.
They could become slaves by contract agreement, clients of their
former slave masters and receive a salary. Evidence from sharia
records shows that recently freed slaves were usually ready and
receptive to Ottoman society especially in small towns and
enjoyed economic and social independence.
(Minutes 08:45 to 09:05)
The slavery of white people in the Ottoman Empire was not
black-and-white but was not intended as seen in other areas and
other times. Our lack of sources paints an unfinished picture of
slavery and how slaves were treated in the Caliphate. But what
we do know is that it's varied and not all that bad as it was in
[color=red]Transatlantic slavery[/color][/quote]
#Post#: 15989--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Difference between Islami and Europe on Slave Treatment
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 6, 2022, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]can get a better job[/quote]
That is an understatement. Let's face it: the Ottomans were
rabid reproductive Eurocentrists obsessed with making their
offspring successively "whiter" every generation. This has been
the case from the beginning:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Brankovi%C4%87
[quote]Mara Branković (Serbian Cyrillic:
Мара
Бранковић)
or Mara Despina Hatun (c. 1416 – 14 September 1487), also known
as Sultana Marija or Amerissa, was the daughter of Serbian
monarch George Branković and Eirene Kantakouzene. As the
daughter of Despot George, wife of Sultan Murad II and
stepmother of Mehmed II, she came to play a significant role in
diplomatic negotiations of the Ottoman Empire.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClbahar_Hatun_(mother_of_Bayezid_II)
[quote]According to Salome Woronzow, she was daughter of
Stanisha Kastrioti, brother of Skanderbeg, the famous Albanian
Lord. Therefore, Gülbahar Hatun was either of Albanian or Greek
origin.[7][8][9][10][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87i%C3%A7ek_Hatun
[quote]The origins of Çiçek are controversial. Serbian, Greek,
Venetian or French origins are attributed to her.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurbanu_Sultan
[quote]Nurbanu Sultan (Ottoman Turkish: نور
بانو
سلطان; "Queen of light", c.
1525[1] – 7 December 1583) was Haseki Sultan of the Ottoman
Empire as the principal consort of Sultan Selim II (reign
1566–1574), his legal wife, as well Valide Sultan (empress
mother) as the mother of Sultan Murad III (reign 1574–1583). She
was one of the most prominent figures during the time of the
Sultanate of Women. Conflicting theories ascribe her a Venetian,
Jewish[2] or Greek[3] origin.[/quote]
etc.. And it only further accelerated with the opportunity to
reproduce with "white" slaves:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrem_Sultan
[quote]Hurrem Sultan (Turkish pronunciation:
[hyɾˈɾæm suɫˈtan], Ottoman Turkish:
خُرّم
سلطان, romanized: Ḫurrem
Sulṭān, Modern Turkish: Hürrem Sultan; c. 1500;1502 –
15 April 1558), also known as Roxelana (Ukrainian:
Роксолана;
lit. 'the Ruthenian one'), was the chief consort and legal
wife of the Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. She became
one of the most powerful and influential women in Ottoman
history as well as a prominent and controversial figure during
the era known as the Sultanate of Women.
Born in Ruthenia (then an eastern region of the Kingdom of
Poland, now Rohatyn, Ukraine) to a Ruthenian Orthodox priest,
Hurrem was captured by Crimean Tatars during a slave raid and
eventually taken to Istanbul, the Ottoman capital.[2] She
entered the Imperial Harem, rose through the ranks and became
the favourite of Sultan Suleiman. Breaking Ottoman tradition, he
married Hurrem, making her his legal wife; sultans had
previously married only foreign free noble ladies. She was the
first imperial consort to receive the title Haseki Sultan.
Hurrem remained in the sultan's court for the rest of her life,
enjoying a close and faithful relationship with her husband, and
having six children with him, including the future sultan, Selim
II. She was the grandmother of Murad III.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiye_Sultan_(Haseki_of_Murad_III)
[quote]According to Venetian sources, Safiye was of Albanian
origin, born in the Dukagjin highlands but was confused for her
origins with Nurbanu Sultan.[2] Her original name was Sofia.
In 1563, at the age of 13, she was presented as a slave to the
future Murad III by his cousin Hümaşah Sultan,
granddaughter of Suleiman the Magnificent and Hurrem Sultan
through their deceased son Şehzade Mehmed,[3] older full
brother of Murad's father Selim. Given the name Safiye, she
became a concubine of Murad (then the eldest son of Sultan Selim
II). On 26 May 1566, she gave birth to Murad's son, the future
Mehmed III, the same year Suleiman the Magnificent died.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handan_Sultan
[quote]Handan Sultan (Ottoman Turkish:
خندان
سلطان meaning "smiling" in
Persian; died 9 November 1605) was the consort of Sultan Mehmed
III, and Valide Sultan to their son Sultan Ahmed I.
...
Of Bosnian origin, Handan Sultan was a servant in the household
of Cerrah Mehmed Pasha[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6sem_Sultan
[quote]Kösem Sultan (Ottoman Turkish:
كوسم
سلطان;[a] c. 1589[1] – 2 September
1651[2]), also known as Mahpeyker Sultan[3][4] (Persian:
ماه پيكر;
lit. 'Visage of the Moon'), was the chief consort and
legal wife of the Ottoman Sultan Ahmed I, valide sultan as the
mother of sultans Murad IV and Ibrahim, and büyük ("elder")
valide sultan as the grandmother of Sultan Mehmed IV. She became
one of the most powerful and influential women in Ottoman
history, as well as a central figure during the period known as
the Sultanate of Women.[5]
...
Kösem is generally said to be of Greek origin,[6][7] the
daughter of a priest on the island of Tinos whose maiden name
was Anastasia,[8][9][6] but these views do not seem reliable.[1]
In 1604, at the age of 14 or 15, she was kidnapped by Ottoman
raiders and bought as a slave in Bosnia by the beylerbey
(governor-general) of the Bosnia Eyalet.[10][/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turhan_Sultan
[quote]Turhan Hatice Sultan (Ottoman Turkish:
تورخان
سلطان, " of mercy "; c. 1627 – 4
August 1683) was the first Haseki Sultan of the Ottoman Sultan
Ibrahim (reign 1640–48) and Valide Sultan as the mother of
Mehmed IV (reign 1648–87). Turhan was prominent for the regency
of her young son and her building patronage. She and her
mother-in-law, Kösem Sultan, are the only two women in Ottoman
history to be regarded as official regents and had supreme
control over the Ottoman Empire. As a result, Turhan became one
of the prominent figures during the era known as Sultanate of
Women.
...
Of Rus' origin,[1][2] Turhan Hatice Sultan, was born in 1627 in
Ruthenia, Ukraine. She was tall, delicate and with blue eyes.[3]
She was captured in one of the raids of the Tatars and sold into
slavery.[4] She was sent to the Imperial Harem at the
Topkapı Palace from the Khan of Crimea.[5] She was
presented to the palace, as a gift of Kör Süleyman Pasha to
Kösem Sultan.[6] She was trained by Atike Sultan, daughter of
Sultan Ahmed I, and groomed by Kösem, who presented her to her
son, Ibrahim.[7] She had one brother, Yunus Agha (died 1689),
living in Istanbul.[8] According to Sakaoğlu, she was tall,
had blue eyes and was white skinned.[9]
Turhan gave birth for sure to two children, Şehzade Mehmed
(future Sultan Mehmed IV)[10] born on 2 January 1642,[11] and
Atike Sultan. Mehmed's birth caused great rejoicing both within
and without the palace.[12] [/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClnu%C5%9F_Sultan
[quote]Emetullah Rabia Gülnuş Sultan (Ottoman Turkish:
جولنوس امت
الله رابعه
سلطان; "Servant of Allah",
"spring" and "Essence of rose", 1642[1] – 6 November 1715,
Edirne) was the Haseki Sultan of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed IV and
Valide Sultan to their sons Mustafa II and Ahmed III. At the
beginning of the 18th century, she became the most powerful and
influential women in the Ottoman Empire. [2][3]
...
Gülnuş Sultan was born in 1642[4] in the town of Rethymno,
Crete, when the island was under Venetian rule; she was
originally named Eumenia Voria
(Ευμενία
Βόρια) and she was an ethnic Greek, the
daughter of a Greek Orthodox priest.[5][a] She was captured by
the Ottomans during the invasion of Crete in 1645.[5]
[/quote]
etc.. The Sultanate of Women should be more accurately called
the Sultanate of "White" Women!
HTML https://smallimg.pngkey.com/png/small/129-1297667_clip-free-stock-collection-of-free-failing-clipart.png
This is the exact same dynamic as described here:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/reproductive-decolonization/msg2343/#msg2343
[quote]They start dynasties that persist to this day … but their
grandsons and great-grandsons are notably whiter than they were,
since the men of the family have been exploiting their social
ascendancy to marry white women.[/quote]
This is why all Eurocentrists need to be prohibited from
reproducing:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/psychological-decolonization/msg8954/#msg8954
#Post#: 15992--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Difference between Islami and Europe on Slave Treatment
By: antihellenistic Date: October 6, 2022, 7:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Mara Branković or Mara Despina Hatun
...
Hurrem Sultan
...
Mehmed III
...
Sultan Ahmed I
...
Kösem Sultan
...
Turhan Hatice Sultan
...
Emetullah Rabia Gülnuş Sultan
...
Mustafa II and Ahmed III.[/quote]
So, the problem are not the Islamic teachings but the people's
"Eurocentrist" atittude as usual
#Post#: 25127--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Crusades: An Arab Perspective Ep1
By: antihellenistic Date: February 19, 2024, 8:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Slavery in Ottoman Empire
[quote]Best
u/Zooasaurus avatar
Zooasaurus
•
4y ago
•
Edited 4y ago
I'll try to answer your question, sorry if it doesn't satisfy
you. This answer is mostly about the view and treatment of freed
Africans in the mid to late 19th century
Of course, just like with European nations, the Ottomans
enslaved Africans, particularly from East Africa, Nubia, Sudan,
and Ethiopia. Because of that, most of Africans living in the
Ottoman Empire were either slaves or freed slaves. I'm mostly
focusing on free Africans and how they lived in the Ottoman
Empire, especially from the tanzimat onwards.
Social Treatment Towards Africans
Ottoman society's view of Africans is characterized by the
color-based homogeneity that's applied to Africans, the Us vs
Them dichotomy, and the proceeding racial discrimination made
against them.
First of all, because of Ottoman society's difficulty in
understanding the geographical origins and African languages,
Africans of various origins were treated as a single,
homogeneous ethnic-racial identity known as "Blacks" (Zenciler)
since the "blackness" of their skin were the easiest way to
categorize them in a "white" society. Second, in the late
Ottoman Empire, local elites and intellectuals associated
Africans and African culture with marginal social groups. In
their eyes, the marginalized and their culture did not measure
up to Ottoman standards. Those people and cultures were uncouth,
underdeveloped, primitive, and incomprehensibly bizarre yet
exotic which created a dichotomy between the "civilized
Ottomans" and "uncivilized Blacks". Lastly, came several
stereotyped features associated with the African populace. Most
had negative connotations, portraying Africans as ignorant,
stupid, lecherous, and adulterous though obviously not all
subscribed to these ideas. Nevertheless, discrimination against
Africans aren't as intense as in, say, the United States since
it was not supported by any state policies. Because of that,
Ottoman subjects mingling or having good relations with Africans
in individual or wider social level isn't
Because of their often marginalized status, Africans lived in
their own neighbourhoods and communities. For example, there are
Izmir's Tamaşalık and İkiçeşme, Veroia's
Arap Mahallesi, and Agha Balta neighbourhood in Candia.
Additionally, in many Ottoman cities there are various African
communities centered around lodges led by a kolbası, freed
African women who served as heads of these lodges and lead
religious processions. The main purpose of these lodges are "for
mutual defence and protection, not only against the tyranny of
masters and mistresses, but against sickness and other accidents
of life". These lodges, with the government's support protected
and housed Africans and preserved some form of their way of
life. For example, these lodges also functioned as a religious
cult whose chief deity was worshipped under such names as
Yavroube or Yavru Bey. These lodges would perform African
festivals (or a creolized form of it) annually, with even
participating Muslim populaces, much to the elite's dismay, as
can be seen in these ridicules from the newspaper Hizmet in
1894:
No matter how much the Calf Festival, special only to our city,
has been criticized, this custom continues yet again. Despite
everything that has been written about this odd and ridiculous
tradition, there remains no other way but to smash the people’s
ignorance. If we ask them, we shall get this answer: if the
calf’s blood is not spilt, then a headless African will come,
will cause us trouble, and will bring disease to our city ... We
cannot do anything but be sorry for this custom of Africans,
which is the result of pure ignorance ... We cannot avoid being
amazed and pained at the fact that four or five thousand of our
sober-minded white people take part in that Calf Festival, which
consists of four or five hundred persons getting together, and
with four or five Ottoman liras buying a calf, slaughtering and
cooking it
The Ottoman Government and Freed Slaves
In 1857, partly because of British pressure the Porte formally
abolished African slave trade (but not slavery or slave trade in
general). The edicts (ferman) were dispatched to provincial
governors-general, instructing them to prohibit the trade in
Africans and that they are responsible to manumit enslaved
Africans immediately and give them the necessary lodgings and
facilities so that they could settle down in the province. This
started the trend of the Porte acting as the "Patron State" to
Africans. The Porte recognized its responsibility for the
well-being of the men and women freed as a result of the
prohibition. Although practice did not always match intentions
(as there are many other reasons on why the Porte goes to much
lengths on doing this), they realized that unless they actively
protected such persons and placed them in gainful jobs, such
persons would soon be exploited, abused, and, often, reenslaved.
Because of that, the Porte tried various ways to ensure the
freed Africans were properly established and integrated in
Ottoman society.
Reattaching freed Africans to private elite households and
government agencies as free manpower were the most common
attempt at doing this. Freed African men were offered place in
the various vocational schools and different types of public
works, such as mining and salt transportation, all involving
physically demanding jobs but with good pay and freedom of
movement. Others were just simply drafted into the army, which
seems to offer attachment to freed African men more than other
government agencies, providing sustenance, shelter, professional
training, and a new identity. Many of these men were placed in
the various military bands, probably because they were deemed to
have musical talents or because a band of black-skinned people
performing in state ceremonials had visual impact. Other common
placements for freed Africans were in artisan battalions and
naval units, where the men were taught technical skills and then
deployed to service or combat units, such as artillery,
transport, and encampment. Skills acquired in the military could
also be used in civilian life after termination of service,
potentially putting the men in higher income brackets than were
the ones employed in unskilled service jobs. Freed African women
were commonly placed in domestic service. Unlike being a
domestic slave, they have a legal option to change employers,
and they were able to earn income (though meagre) and gradually
save up for a future family. Some of the women also received
professional training that enabled them to work in other jobs
Later on, In Istanbul, the Ministry of Police, established a
hostel (misafirhane) for liberated persons. This was a sort of
lodgehouse intended to temporarily host freed slaves until
proper employment could be found for them. Though there are
problems at first, the establishment of hostels to care for
freed Africans became an official Empire-wide policy with a
system devised to feed, clothe, and shelter freed Africans paid
for by the central government, partly by the local authorities,
and partly through financing by local employers who would
undertake payment for the free laborers they were gaining
through the government emancipation program. In 1884, Sultan
Abdülhamid II further ordered that freed Africans be brought
from Benghazi to Istanbul and Izmir to avoid a lengthy wait in
the province, and then the women were to be placed in domestic
service, while the men in military bands and artisan battalions.
Additionally, the Sultan launched a settlement program for
liberated Africans. The idea was to marry freed men and women to
each other, create new village communities for them, and settle
them as agricultural workers on state land not unlike the
recently adopted Circassian settlement program. However, i don't
know if this program were ever adopted throughout the Empire, as
it seemed that the program were only ever ran in Aydın.
Of course, things wasn't perfect as there are many problems with
this system. Monetary problems were the most frequent, as
sometimes there are not enough money to care for the interned
slaves. This led to the sometimes horrible conditions in hostels
without being fed or cared. The biggest problem however, is that
in such a vast empire, with so many diverse and conflicting
interests, not all orders from Istanbul were obeyed. Sometimes
governor-generals would just simply return the enslaved to their
masters or resold them in a different city. All in all, there
was a system in place, but it was far from perfect.[/quote]
Source :
reusffhd. (2020, June 11). Treatment of Blacks in The Ottoman
Empire.
HTML https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h156m1/treatment_of_blacks_in_the_ottoman_empire/
[quote]Slaves could be acquired in war, by purchase, gift or
inheritance. African slaves were considered quite valuable and
typically came from Central Africa. They would be sold in the
slave markets at Fezzan in Libya and Upper Egypt or might have
been brought to Mecca during the time of the pilgrimage and sold
there. From the 16th century, Egypt and most of the Arabian
Peninsula were under Ottoman control and in the 17th century,
the Ottomans took over the Fezzan region. That gave them greater
access to African slaves. Perhaps as much of Istanbul’s
population as 20 percent consisted of slaves, although we have
no idea of what percentage would have been Africans. Most
moderately well-to-do families would be able to afford a slave
to handle basic chores, but the rarity of blacks in Istanbul
would have ensured that only the wealthy could own one.
Under Islamic law, the slave had to be provided with shelter,
clothing, food and medical care, while freeing a slave was
considered an act of piety. Slaves could even take their owner
to court. There are stories of slaves being freed and given the
wherewithal to start a new life, although he or she might prefer
to stay with their former master or mistress than tackle the
difficulties of living alone in a foreign city. Where Africans
were concerned, returning to Central Africa was not a solution;
he or she would have been sold when they were very young – 10-12
years of age and it was unlikely they would ever make it back to
their original homes. He or she was most often considered a part
of the family. They could buy their own homes and even marry,
provided they had the permission of their owners. If the owner
were to take a female black slave as his concubine, he might
free her and make her his wife. If she bore him a son, even
while a slave, the boy would be considered free. The children of
a slave father and mother were considered slaves even though the
owner had given permission for the marriage.
If any owner treated a slave cruelly and it came to the
attention of the authorities, that person might be punished. For
example, if he withheld food, the court might have the owner’s
property sold to provide the necessary nourishment. Or he might
be sent into exile, in cases that were not very serious, being
exiled from Istanbul was sufficient, since Istanbul was the
center of Ottoman civilization.[/quote]
Source :
hurriyetdailynews.com. (2014, August). African slaves in the
Ottoman Empire. Hürriyet Daily News; hurriyetdailynews.com.
HTML https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/african-slaves-in-the-ottoman-empire-69858
Contrary to "Modern Turkey" led by Mustafa Kemal Attaturk
[quote]When General İlker Basbuğ, the highest ranking
officer in Turkey until just a few years ago, defined some
citizens as, “people who don’t really have Turkish blood in
their veins,” he was revealing just the tip of an ugly iceberg.
General Basbug here was merely repeating what was established as
one of the foundation stones of the new “secular” Turkish
identity under the founding father of modern Turkey, Mustafa
Kemal Ataturk.
Following the departure of the last Greek soldiers from
Anatolian soil on 15 September 1922, the ceasefire of 11 October
and the evacuation of eastern Thrace by the Greek army, the
Lausanne peace conference opened. While the conference
maintained suspense over the conclusion of peace, the year 1923
marked the establishment of the basic institutions, as well as
the policies, of the new Turkey. During this time, Mustafa Kemal
developed his critique of the economic backwardness of his
country and its Islamic culture, and introduced his main goal as
how to achieve western standards of political and economic
management, in other words ‘to make Turkey European’.
Ataturk genuinely believed that the new Turkey should cut all
its “Eastern/ Muslim” origins adrift and define itself as part
of the “White/ Western” civilization. He tried to prove this in
many different ways for the rest of his life. The Turkish
delegation at Lausanne sought to convince the British, French
and Italian delegates that the Ankara government had nothing in
common with the “old Eastern/ Muslim Turk” represented by the
Ottoman Empire.
Hence, the new Turkey, from the start, identified itself
directly and immediately with the history, culture and
perceptions of the western world, claiming a total break with
the Ottoman and Islamic past. By 1925 an independent Turkish
Republic was firmly established with its new western
institutions and militantly secular modernising ideology. A
completely new social order was created under the rule of its
small secular military elite. The events of these early years
mark an important watershed in the development of Turkish state
ideology, which is still dominating most aspects of the Turkish
state and society.
In 1932, a Turkish Historical Congress was convened in Ankara
with the task of proving the theory that the Turks were indeed a
white Aryan race originating in Central Asia where ‘Western
civilization’ was assumed to have originated. The second Turkish
Historical Congress met in Istanbul in 1937, where further
desperate steps were taken to prove that the Turks were indeed a
central part of the White European race. Eugene Pittard**, the
Swiss anthropologist whose work was perceived and practiced as a
racist account of humanity, not only participated but was
announced as the honorary president.
When Mustafa Kemal spoke of the future of his country in terms
of a western perception he was indeed registering the identity
of the Turkish elite, of which he was a distinguished member.
The western-oriented elite would, and indeed did, use this
position to feel superior to their own people because they were
able to articulate the “Eastern”, the “Oriental”, the “Muslim
Turk”, to the “West”. Yet, in their relationships with the
western world, they could always remain as “enlightened
natives”. In other words, “modern” Turkey was accepted as a
useful outsider and an incorporated weak partner for the west,
and has stayed as such until now. However, the self-perceptions
of individual members of the country have remained closely
rooted in the identity-formation processes of those early days,
the days of the 1920s and 30s.
Every Turkish child still grows up memorizing Atatürk’s 1927
address to the youth, which says “the noble Turkish blood in
your veins.” All primary and secondary schools still teach a
“Turkish” history that starts with the Huns of Central Asia,
giving an ethnic, not civic, sense of a nation. And nationalist
demagogues speak of “pure Turks” in the country, clearly
excluding the Kurds and all non-Muslims, and, recently sharply
against (Muslim) Arabs, as the number of Syrian refugees
increases fast in the country.[/quote]
Source :
Gökay, Bülent. (2014). Race and racism in modern Turkey.
Accessed on 20 February 2023, from
HTML https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/race-and-racism-in-modern-turkey/
‌
#Post#: 25557--------------------------------------------------
Re: American Slave Insurrections
By: antihellenistic Date: March 20, 2024, 5:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Since the beginning of time, the condition we broadly
refer to as slavery has existed in so many different iterations
that it is almost unfair to sweep all the different variations
of human bondage under the umbrella of one language’s inadequate
definition. Is a prisoner of war the same as a domestic servant?
Does an unpaid worker serving a period of indentured servitude
fall synonymous with a woman forced to enter an arranged
marriage? Is criminal incarceration indistinguishable from
mandatory military conscription? These are just a few historical
examples of people who have been broadly defined as “slaves.”
But unlike in Europe or elsewhere in the world, color-based
slavery was regulated as a part of America’s founding document.
Slaves from antiquity were still seen as human, and their
enslavement was not solely based on skin color. Slavery existed
in Africa before white people showed up, but human beings were
not commodified or chattel. In pre-colonial Africa, enslaved
people had legal rights, their status was not passed down to
their children, and they did not serve as a major labor force.
In fact, most of the previous iterations of human bondage around
the world offered a path to freedom. To be fair, it is much
easier to refer to America’s unique institution as “slavery”
than it is to call it the “perpetual, race-based,
constitutional, human trafficking enterprise that legally
reduces human beings to chattel through the means of violence or
the threat thereof.” That’s quite a mouthful. But at its heart,
that’s what it is.[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America by Michael
Harriot page 42 and 43
*****************************************************