As “Nordburg” explained below, it was only a symbolic measure
And it was the white man who made slavery a capitalistic venture, engaged in to specifically turn a profit, prior to that slavery was largely a punishment or the consequences of losing a war or conflict and not carried on in a worldwide design
The claim is false. Slavery as a large-scale, profit-driven commercial enterprise— involving organized trade networks, markets, raids for captives specifically to sell, and economic exploitation—existed for thousands of years across multiple continents long before Europeans ("the white man") entered the transatlantic slave trade in the 15th century. It was not "largely" limited to punishment for crimes or mere consequences of defensive wars, nor was it absent from "worldwide" (or at least intercontinental) designs. Europeans dramatically expanded and industrialized one existing trade route into the chattel, race-based plantation system, but they did not invent the profit motive behind slavery.
1. Slavery was a widespread economic institution in the ancient world, not just punitive or local
- Ancient Rome (centuries BCE to ~500 CE): Slavery was a core driver of the Roman economy, not an afterthought to war. Enslaved people (often war captives but also bought via trade, bred, or acquired through debt/piracy/child abandonment) powered agriculture on vast estates (latifundia), mining, manufacturing, and urban businesses. Slave markets were routine; traders operated as businesses; slaves were legally treated as assets/tools (instrumenta) in commerce. Recent analysis of Pompeii shows enslaved labor likely generated about half the city's economy, with slave ownership as the largest single income source for urban elites. Slaves were a commodity in a profit-seeking system across the Mediterranean.
- Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, India, China, and pre-Columbian Americas: Slavery dates back to the Neolithic (agriculture enabled surplus and coercion) and was institutionalized by the first civilizations (~4000 BCE in Sumer). It included hereditary forms, debt bondage, and trade—not solely "losing a war." Captives were sold across regions for labor, tribute, or luxury goods.
These were not isolated "punishments"; they formed sustained economic systems with supply chains.2. The Arab/Muslim slave trade was a massive, profit-driven commercial network centuries before EuropeansFrom the 7th century onward (predating Portuguese contact with West Africa by ~800 years), Arab traders ran the trans-Saharan, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean slave trades. Estimates: 10–18+ million Africans enslaved over 1,300 years. This was explicitly commercial—raids targeted villages for captives (not just battlefield losers), who were marched in caravans or shipped for sale in markets across North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Demand was high for labor, concubines (women/girls often outnumbered men 3:1 and fetched premium prices), eunuchs, and soldiers. Profits funded empires; it was not "largely" punitive. This trade continued into the 20th century, overlapping and outlasting the transatlantic one in duration.
This was a "worldwide design" in scope: it linked sub-Saharan Africa, the Islamic world, Europe (via raids), and Asia.3. Slavery in Africa was established, often commercial, and predated European contactSlavery existed in West and Central African societies long before the 1440s Portuguese arrivals. It arose from wars, debt, crime, or raids—but rulers and elites routinely traded captives for economic gain (goods, horses, weapons) to build wealth and power. Kingdoms like Mali, Songhai, Benin, Dahomey, Oyo, and Asante had internal slave systems and external trade routes (e.g., trans-Saharan to Arabs). Portuguese records from the 15th century show they joined existing African slave markets and supply chains; African elites sold war captives or raided for profit. Slavery here was often more assimilative/kinship-based than later chattel forms (slaves could sometimes integrate or their children gain status), but it was profit-oriented trade nonetheless—not just punishment. The external demand (first Arab, then European) scaled it up, but the institution and markets were already there.
European arrival did not "invent" African slavery; it redirected and intensified an existing trade for plantation labor in the Americas.4. "Capitalistic venture" is an anachronism—but profit was always the pointModern industrial capitalism (private investment, wage labor, global markets) post-dates the medieval period, so no one "made" ancient slavery capitalist. But treating humans as tradable assets for surplus production, wealth accumulation, and market exchange is exactly what happened in Rome, the Arab trade, African kingdoms, and elsewhere. Slave traders profited; empires taxed slave commerce; owners extracted labor value. The transatlantic trade was uniquely scaled and racialized for sugar/tobacco/cotton plantations, but the profit motive was not new—it was the same logic Europeans found operating in Africa.
In short, the claim inverts history: Europeans did not create commercial slavery; they participated in, expanded, and transformed preexisting systems that spanned continents and economies for millennia. Slavery's near-universal presence across human societies (hunter-gatherers to empires) shows it was a human failing, not a "white man" invention. The transatlantic variant's horrors and legacy are real and distinct, but pretending it was the first profit-driven or "worldwide" form erases the documented history of everyone else involved.
news.un.org
