European Slavery

[KingCondanomation]

I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the enslavement and piracy of Europeans by the Barbary pirates of North Africa.

I mean I always knew it existed but I never knew the massive scope of what it involved. So some highlights:

- an estimated 800,000 to 1.25 million Europeans enslaved
- entire coastlines in parts of Italy and Spain with no one left to enslave
- raids involving taking people as far away as Iceland
- a big factor for what set up the English civil war (ie: angry coastal Englishmen)
- terrible life with many just chained to an oar for the rest of their life to be used to go out and get more slaves
- huge number of ships lost, sometimes hundreds over just a few years
- even enslavement of Americans
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates[/ame]

It kind of changes your thoughts to what you think of when you normally think of slavery. It's hard to believe European powers that could have put a stop to it didn't for a long time.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the enslavement and piracy of Europeans by the Barbary pirates of North Africa.

I mean I always knew it existed but I never knew the massive scope of what it involved. So some highlights:

- an estimated 800,000 to 1.25 million Europeans enslaved
- entire coastlines in parts of Italy and Spain with no one left to enslave
- raids involving taking people as far away as Iceland
- a big factor for what set up the English civil war (ie: angry coastal Englishmen)
- terrible life with many just chained to an oar for the rest of their life to be used to go out and get more slaves
- huge number of ships lost, sometimes hundreds over just a few years
- even enslavement of Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

It kind of changes your thoughts to what you think of when you normally think of slavery. It's hard to believe European powers that could have put a stop to it didn't for a long time.

If you're so inclined I suggest you look up African slavery (that is African countries who owned African slaves), which really set the trend for the European and American slave trades.

 

[KingCondanomation]

If you're so inclined I suggest you look up African slavery (that is African countries who owned African slaves), which really set the trend for the European and American slave trades.

I have actually, it did exist and was probably more widespread, though you should read Olaudah Equiano's personal account of the two, you can read it free here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15399/15399-8.txt
African slavery was not quite as bad as North American slavery of blacks and honestly I have to say even worse was the slavery in North Africa at least in terms of cruelty.

Another sad but interesting point is that Arab slavery of blacks is higher in numbers than white slavery of blacks and still goes on today
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade[/ame]

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the enslavement and piracy of Europeans by the Barbary pirates of North Africa.

I mean I always knew it existed but I never knew the massive scope of what it involved. So some highlights:

- an estimated 800,000 to 1.25 million Europeans enslaved
- entire coastlines in parts of Italy and Spain with no one left to enslave
- raids involving taking people as far away as Iceland
- a big factor for what set up the English civil war (ie: angry coastal Englishmen)
- terrible life with many just chained to an oar for the rest of their life to be used to go out and get more slaves
- huge number of ships lost, sometimes hundreds over just a few years
- even enslavement of Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

It kind of changes your thoughts to what you think of when you normally think of slavery. It's hard to believe European powers that could have put a stop to it didn't for a long time.

The world was much more anarchic back then. The Barbary states were very powerful, as the industrial revolution of the 1800's hadn't happened yet. And slavery wasn't thought of as the dramatic evil that it was today.

So I guess under those conditions it could flourish.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I have actually, it did exist and was probably more widespread, though you should read Olaudah Equiano's personal account of the two, you can read it free here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15399/15399-8.txt
African slavery was not quite as bad as North American slavery of blacks and honestly I have to say even worse was the slavery in North Africa at least in terms of cruelty.

Another sad but interesting point is that Arab slavery of blacks is higher in numbers than white slavery of blacks and still goes on today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Arab slave trade? That's kind of amazing that it hasn't been stamped out.

Maybe in places like Yemen, but I would think places like Saudi Arabia could have gotten rid of it by now.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Arab slave trade? That's kind of amazing that it hasn't been stamped out.

Maybe in places like Yemen, but I would think places like Saudi Arabia could have gotten rid of it by now.

I never saw anything of the sort while I was over in Iraq, though I suppose that's to be expected. Still kind of shocking that it goes on, but then again not so surprising.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The article identified these countries:

With the possible exception of Oman, all of these countries are rich and well-organized. They have no excuse to have any vestige of slavery. I can only think that there's some mass corruption going on and some poision in the culture that still considers it reasonable.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

The article identified these countries:

With the possible exception of Oman, all of these countries are rich and well-organized. They have no excuse to have any vestige of slavery. I can only think that there's some mass corruption going on and some poision in the culture that still considers it reasonable.

Freedom and equality mean many different things over there compared to here. It's really not surprising that those countries are still slave owning ones. And sadly even LESS surprising that they're the ones our country is on best terms with.

 

[KingCondanomation]

The article identified these countries:

With the possible exception of Oman, all of these countries are rich and well-organized. They have no excuse to have any vestige of slavery. I can only think that there's some mass corruption going on and some poision in the culture that still considers it reasonable.

Well a major part of the justification that the Barbary's gave to enslaving Europeans was that their religion allowed and encouraged it as they were Christians or not muslim.
I think part of it even today, especially if you look at countries that have both religions and slavery like Sudan, is that it is a religious schism.
Sometimes people just need to find a justification for things they know are wrong.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well a major part of the justification that the Barbary's gave to enslaving Europeans was that their religion allowed and encouraged it as they were Christians or not muslim.
I think part of it even today, especially if you look at countries that have both religions and slavery like Sudan, is that it is a religious schism.
Sometimes people just need to find a justification for things they know are wrong.

When grind asked me what made me most pessimistic about the human race (I was drunk at the time and told him to ask me anything), I said dehumanization.

 

[KingCondanomation]

The world was much more anarchic back then. The Barbary states were very powerful, as the industrial revolution of the 1800's hadn't happened yet. And slavery wasn't thought of as the dramatic evil that it was today.

So I guess under those conditions it could flourish.

Some good thoughts but you are throwing some historical pieces together. Slavery wasn't thought of too much as evil. Certainly the Europeans who were the slaves and got more exposed to it and could have stopped it saw it for what it was. The thing is a lot of the powers thought it a useful evil as they could pay for passage for trade or encourage them to concentrate their attacks more on their European enemies.

The barbary states were kind of powerful because of the wealth from piracy, but their power was loose and disjointed and nothing that could have ever involved forming some sort of army or navy. I actually think because of that they were more viewed as a pest, a major pest, but not a powerful threat.

It wasn't really the industrial revolution that stopped it but more just empire building focusing on an area they previously would not have been able to colonize so easily. I think the navies of the British and French really got built up in the early 1800's with the Napoleanic wars and they finally thought they had the power to just overrun the pirate enclaves more easily.

I think they all would have acted much earlier if they really knew the scope of just how many thousands were in slavery.

 

[KingCondanomation]

When grind asked me what made me most pessimistic about the human race (I was drunk at the time and told him to ask me anything), I said dehumanization.

But there was far more dehumanization in the past right? So why would you be pessimistic about the future?

I think there is far more dehumanization when people think of others as groups rather than getting to know anyone from a different group as an individual. If everyone thought of everyone else as just an individual, their would be no blind hate, you would force your mind to get to know someone before you could hate or like them.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

But there was far more dehumanization in the past right? So why would you be pessimistic about the future?

I'm not pessimistic about the future. Actually, I think he said the human race. The one thing, I think, that could stop human progress is for dehumanization to come back into play en masse. But, as I mentioned to grind, the 20th century was a remarkably non-violent century, even considering WWI and WWII (which is amazing to think about).

I think there is far more dehumanization when people think of others as groups rather than getting to know anyone from a different group as an individual. If everyone thought of everyone else as just an individual, their would be no blind hate, you would force your mind to get to know someone before you could hate or like them.

Liberals?

LOL.

It's OK to think of groups themselves, but it's not OK to identify a person in a group as the group instead of an individual, IMHO.

 

[KingCondanomation]

I'm not pessimistic about the future. Actually, I think he said the human race. The one thing, I think, that could stop human progress is for dehumanization to come back into play en masse. But, as I mentioned to grind, the 20th century was a remarkably non-violent century, even considering WWI and WWII (which is amazing to think about).

It's true, yeah it is amazing. Still killing was never more efficient and in as high numbers (not percentagewise) as it was in the 20th century, but definetely less brutal.

Liberals?
LOL.
It's OK to think of groups themselves, but it's not OK to identify a person in a group as the group instead of an individual, IMHO.

Political groupings are correct though. If you say all whites or blacks or muslims or christians or rednecks or rich or poor are this or that, you are judging who they are without knowing them.
But as beliefs convey who a person is, if a group holds those beliefs then you can judge that group. Certainly all Liberals believe in Liberalism. It's the reason I go after Liberals and not Democrats, it's also why I say Liberal Democrats - because I don't want to judge other Democrats.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's true, yeah it is amazing. Still killing was never more efficient and in as high numbers (not percentagewise) as it was in the 20th century, but definetely less brutal.



Political groupings are correct though. If you say all whites or blacks or muslims or christians or rednecks or rich or poor are this or that, you are judging who they are without knowing them.
But as beliefs convey who a person is, if a group holds those beliefs then you can judge that group. Certainly all Liberals believe in Liberalism. It's the reason I go after Liberals and not Democrats, it's also why I say Liberal Democrats - because I don't want to judge other Democrats.

The Communists dehumanized by ideology, similar to how the Nazi's dehumanized by race. Which is what I was getting at. It's OK to attack an ideological group, but it's not OK, IMHO, to automatically assume that the people in that group are inhuman abominations.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Do you not have a problem with non-Democratic liberals?