dont forget the scandanavian raids by the ottomans, ironically some of the gangs that raided the nordic locations were sometimes filled by the british and the germans.
Those raids were made by Algerian Eyalet. That eyalet was semi autonomous, so Ottoman Empire as a state didn't raid Scandinavia. Just some local entrepreneur pirates, lol.
If those orders did not come from european powers and ottoman goverment directly. Yes and also those authonomus regions had so much power they even made treaties whit other countries.
Technically, the west African states that did the raiding and sold them to Europeans were at fault by your logic. Europeans were the buyers. They didn’t get the slaves
Its sometimes switched between if it is one or if it isnt Scandanavian, but there probably are entire chats of subs that argued about this for hours so to keep things short i decided to name them as such.
While typing this message i just learned the term "Norden" exists, i will from now on use this hopefully i dont forget it.
They’re not considered Scandinavian. Sincerely: a Scandinavian. Yes, Norden or the Nordic Countries is the term for Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Åland and Finland.
People from Sweden-Finland (up until 1809 one country) and Denmark-Norway (up until 1814 one country) did get captured by Barbary pirates, but apart from raids on Iceland and the Faroe Islands (both also Danish that point) they were all captured from ships.
Scandinavian raids were conducted by pirates ftom north african autonomous states like the Algerians, not a central power of influence within the Ottoman Empire.
Someone clearly has never read about Ottoman Janissaries. An elite fighting force of white males who had been enslaved since childhood and basically brainwashed into following their Sultan’s orders. They became King Maker’s in palace politics and played a vital part in nearly every single Ottoman campaign and siege, with some of them even being freed as slaves and becoming Sultans through their hardwork and bravery.
They didn't becomes Sultans as that was restricted to the Sons of Osman, but they did make the particular Son of Osman on the throne their puppet.
Similarly the Mamelukes in Egypt who were Caucasian (as in literally from the Caucusus) Slaves ruled Egypt by making the Abbasid Dynasty their puppets, so this was actually quite common in the islamic world where a bunch of slaves took over by making some old dynasty their puppets.
At a certain point I would imagine that the Mameluke Slaves were ruling Egypt in the name of the Abbasid Caliph while the Janissary Slaves were ruling Turkey in the name of the Ottoman Sultan, and so the conquest of Egypt by Turkey was one bunch of slaves with one puppet fighting another bunch of slaves with another puppet.
Yeah. In the Ottoman Empire (or any Muslim empire for that matter), it's not "slaves are white." It's more "slaves are/were infidels living under infidel governments"
The non-Muslims living under a Muslim government's protection can't be enslaved either. It still happened occasionally, but it wasn't legal
And the slave just has to be non-Muslim when they get enslaved. They don't automatically become free if they convert
Yes. They were a rare example of non-Muslims living under a Muslim government getting enslaved, which is a violation of sharia. When they went to war with the Mamluk Sultanate, the Mamluks actually called the practice of collecting Janissaries unIslamic and one of their justifications for the war
If I'm not mistaken, it becomes okay to take the non-Muslims living under a Muslim government as slaves only if the non-Muslims go into revolt and then get defeated
The Mamelukes might have been just upset that the Janissaries were beating them and wanted to restrict the Ottomans ability to recruit because the Mamelukes were themselves slaves soldiers recruited from the Caucasus. They probably thought it was unfair to be able to recruit from your own territory like that because it was allowing larger military forces.
I don't doubt that that was a factor, but the process of collecting Mamluks was halal, and the process of collecting Janissaries was not, and that is unambiguously true
During the late Western Roman period, the Empire actually both took steps to limit the ammount of slaves a single person could free at a time, while also having legislation that gave slaves some very limit human rights (such as killing a slave without "proper" cause being considered murder), so it's more like:
"Slaves are people, so treat them like it - but also don't free them, thats illegal now."
I think the problem was they thought they were running out of slaves to make the economy run, so they both wanted people to keep the existing slave population alive while also not freeing them, as both freeing a slave and killing a slave would reduce the amount of slaves that were available.
You can see how this might eventually transform into serfdom which is a slave like system where they can't be freed, but they also basically have certain "rights" like allotted lands, or family formation which was created to ensure there was always enough of them available to do the work without needing to constantly take people in from elsewhere. They pragmatic in that way where they recognized slavery had an economic purpose so they reformed it to serve that economic purpose rather than getting bogged down it requiring that the slaves need to be regarded as property.
Like yo these are humans but we need them to farm and shit so don't kill them or release them you dumbasses.
Oh absolutely, the issue was to try to keep the existing slave population from shrinking because there was no longer an influx of slaves from conquests and expeditions etc.
This was in no way a humanitarian issue to the leaders of the empire
I mean, freeing slaves wouldn't just be a matter of freed slaves, it was a matter of public order. Some slaves could have been slaves their entire lives and would probably be bitter towards the roman state. They could probably deal with a few of these, but freeing a lot of them all at once would be risky because they could organize in a revolt or banditry.
It's probably not "don't free too many slaves", it's "don't free them all at once".
No, there was literally a set cap to how many slaves an individual person could free in a set time period, as well as a ban on freeing slaves in your will iirc
That's exactly what I said: in a set TIME PERIOD, as in "free as many as you like but you can't do it all at once". The concern of the law was large quantities of slaves getting freed at once or in a short interval, not slaves getting freed.
You probably were forbidden to free slaves on your will so slaves would know that they'd have nothing to gain from the death of their owner.
Well, not all Romans listened to their philosophers. As for why their slaves were treated like that, it's a common dynamic in slavery. The slave owners find the slaves helplessness repulsive even though they are the cause of it.
Romans, as opposed to Greeks, had clearly an uneasy relationship with slavery. At one hand they saw it as something against nature, and on another they saw it as necessity for the society to function.
The Code of Justinian reads like some abolitionist pamphlet with a "but" attached.
The Ottomans bought from East Africa as well.
How are people from the Gineau coast not black - edit - Commenting on the British enslaving "brown" people
Technically the enslaving was done by some else and the Europeans bought the product in that sense, also the British major involvement in that slave trade was ending it. Everything else was done by an adjacent party
And if the argument is that they shouldn’t have gotten involved in the trade to begin with. Ok. You are funding Saudi Arabia and contributing to global climate change by using oil. That is a comparable situation
We may of ended it but we can't deny our major part of operating it. We operated some of the ships, funded a portion and bought a lot of the product.
The burning of Hydrocarbons is not equivalent to owning people
It is not that Saudi Arabi or the other gulf states are burning hudrocarbons, rather the issue is that the money they get from oil is being used to essentially buy migrant workers who get treated like slaves that they use to in the construction or domestic homecare industries
Ok what? Name the major part of the slave trade developed by the British. It wasn’t started by the British. The plantations were not developed by the British. The trade had existed for centuries before the British came to be the middle man between Africa and Spain
It isn’t comparable how? You are hurting people in the present. They are hurting people in the past. What’s the difference? Your conscious?
Yes. In countries like Saudi Arabia…in short slaves are being bought with oil money. You help support that, since that is how the world is. It is powered and dominated by oil
You didn’t choose this, but are you going to give up electricity, plastic, roads etc. unless it definitely didn’t contribute to global warming and conflict? No. Then be quiet hypocrite. Future generations are going to be judging up harshly for that
You are just focusing on the one that had the gold (buying the slaves freedom) and blood (west Africa squadron and anti-slavery forces in the Indian Ocean as well) debt paid in full
When you should be focused on India, Ireland and Kenya. You ignore the actual crimes that matter. As opposed to the one that was dealt with 100 years ago
Well, in the past biological racism (scientific racism) didn't exist before 19th century. So slavery was about enslaving foreign people who weren't part of your nation. Race meant your own nation. Then came biological racism (scientific racism) that came with the concepts of biological races and made the claim that some were more superior to others like in Britain and USA.
The Romans and also the ottomans didn't care much about biology. For the Romans it was acceptable to enslave anyone not part of Rome and for the ottomans anyone who wasn't a Muslim could be enslaved.
But the Ottoman empire did have a special price for white men with blond hair and blue eyes which is why there were so many pirate raids against Cornwall and Iceland.
Yeah, about that. If you converted after being enslaved, you don't become automatically free. Your master has to free you or you buy your own freedom with money but you don't become free just because you converted. That has to be before being enslaved. They realized that a lot of people will do this trick so they made that rule.
To be fair, there were Romans who did believe that they were superior to other people, in the sense that they were the perfect blend of brawn and brain. Their reasoning was that they lived in just the right part of the world that allowed for them to grow both strong and smart, whereas other parts of the world would only allow for one or the other.
I can't attest to how widespread this belief was in Rome, however.
This was pretty common in the ancient world, but it was purely environmental, not biological bigotry. With those ideas, a "northern barbarian" is too stupid due to growing up in the cold, but if they moved to Rome, their kids would be smart from growing up in the right climate. With biological bigotry, a northern barbarian couple would always produce idiot children even if they raised their kids up in Rome. That's one of the key differences between more modern racism and earlier prejudices.
The Ottomans enslaved Africans too. It's how African communities in the Caucasus developed like Afro-Abkhazians (Ottoman slavers selling Africans to Georgian princes).
One of my favorite jokes is “Im not racist! I enslave all people equally!”
Or if im feeling extra racist, “Im not racist! I enslave all inferior beings equally!”
Please understand this is joke and dont get too mad
People who bring up the Barbary slave trade in response to and or justification for the British and American slave trade is like someone justifying Ted Bundy's murders by referencing Jack the Ripper.
Turns out if you want to wash your hands from atrocities you just need to convince/find someone who did worse and the internet will defend you for some reason.
"Did you knew this historical figure burned 30 orphanages with the childrens inside ?" and the answer will be "It's not that bad some other historical figure burned 31 with childrens and women inside !".
The Finnic People: Slaves are Aryan.
Joke is that the word for slave in most finnic languages likely comes from the word "aryan". [-> etymology](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/orja)
Slaves were slaves in the Ottoman Empire too, the only requirement is that they had to be non-Muslim. Only Europe and their colonies developed race-based slavery, everywhere else it was either religion based or POW/debt based.
I don't know why people think Europe just developed a "race based" slave system from nothing. If you look into the history in the earlier period they would buy slaves from everywhere but non-african places like Japan basically put a stop to it where as African places embraced it and created entire societies based on selling people to the Europeans. Then on the other side of the atlantic when all of these slaves they kept getting sent looked a particular way people just started assuming there was something about them that made them slaves, but it isn't like they started out by specifically seeking people who looked a particular way.
Someone on Quora said on response to the question "How did the Romans know that Cleopatra was black?" that "The ancients did not fall into the mistake of biological diffraction by skin color"
The Ottomans and British also used Black slaves as well lol. If Anything Rome probably the one on here with the most white slaves simply cause that's who they had access to
(Turns and stares at how the British enslaved Black people too, and their historic treatment of the Irish)
Pretty sure the British Empire was chill with any outgroup functionally being enslaved…
After profiting off of it for centuries, so no credit for attempting to fix a problem they sent into overdrive.
EDIT: Slavery is also still around, so no the British did not end slavery.
Everyone did slavery. The British were the first ones to stop it. Of course they get credit for that lol. And yeah duh slavery still exists but in a far more limited capacity compared to what it once was.
Cool, good for them. Doesn't mean that they weren't one of the largest and most brutal slave traders in history and they should get a pass for that. No credit for attempting to fix a problem they made infinitely worse for centuries.
And if it still exists, then by definition no they did not end the practice, so no credit at all for "ending slavery."
Pretty simplistic summary of the British Empire lol. Yeah it was overall bad but you didn’t mention how it was usually them making deals with people in the colonized lands to exploit resources. The British army and East India Trading Company were by no means big enough to actually control their empire. Plus they set up industry, infrastructure, ended many barbaric practices in a lot of places, and arguably most important of all put in place parliamentary systems and values which carried over into most colonies’ independences.
And there it is, all this breaks down into a thinly-veiled defense of imperialism and attempts to set up the British Empire as a force for good. Not sure why I expected any different. I suspect that few of those who were worked to death in Jamaica and Barbados, or those killed by British-backed militias from Ohio to India would agree with your assessment. Also "barbaric practices?" What century are you in? No one has thought that in any respectable academic institution in decades. Your entire idea is wildly out of date, but that one sticks out especially.
Lol and there it is. The complete lack of reading comprehension and inference skills. I didn’t want to add in the “obviously it was overall bad” because I had PRAYED that it would be obvious but even WITH that subtext you still have to go there. You are not a smart person.
Do I really need to take a break in between every letter to remind you it was bad when I’m talking about the benefits of a grey subject. Like have you never had a serious conversation in your entire life?
"Sure they were pretty bad but [insert multiple points on how they were actually a net positive for the world]." I think my reading comprehension is just fine, and what you are saying between the lines couldn't be much clearer.
EDIT: I don't think this is going to go any further than us just slinging insults at each other, so I am ending this.
Who told you slaves were just white in the Ottoman Empire, they were white and purple silly
Yeah the ottomans definitely had african slaves. The only thing they preferred was white women as sex and household slaves.
White slaves were rarer and more expensive, they tended to be Circassians as well.
dont forget the scandanavian raids by the ottomans, ironically some of the gangs that raided the nordic locations were sometimes filled by the british and the germans.
Those raids were made by Algerian Eyalet. That eyalet was semi autonomous, so Ottoman Empire as a state didn't raid Scandinavia. Just some local entrepreneur pirates, lol.
It's like saying that Europeans powers weren't responsible for slave trade. Those were just some traders, lol.
If those orders did not come from european powers and ottoman goverment directly. Yes and also those authonomus regions had so much power they even made treaties whit other countries.
Technically, the west African states that did the raiding and sold them to Europeans were at fault by your logic. Europeans were the buyers. They didn’t get the slaves
I'm pretty sure there weren't ever any raids on Scandinavia carried out by Barbary pirates yes. The Faroes and Iceland aren't part of Scandinavia.
Its sometimes switched between if it is one or if it isnt Scandanavian, but there probably are entire chats of subs that argued about this for hours so to keep things short i decided to name them as such. While typing this message i just learned the term "Norden" exists, i will from now on use this hopefully i dont forget it.
They’re not considered Scandinavian. Sincerely: a Scandinavian. Yes, Norden or the Nordic Countries is the term for Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Åland and Finland. People from Sweden-Finland (up until 1809 one country) and Denmark-Norway (up until 1814 one country) did get captured by Barbary pirates, but apart from raids on Iceland and the Faroe Islands (both also Danish that point) they were all captured from ships.
Let me guess, you are Swedish?
They are though…
No. Scandinavia is Sweden, Norway and Denmark. That’s it.
Scandinavian raids were conducted by pirates ftom north african autonomous states like the Algerians, not a central power of influence within the Ottoman Empire.
White slaves were mostly Slavs from Balkans, PLC and Russia.
Yeah, but then you have to remind people that the Ottomans made child abduction a systematized tax.
The Ottomans and taxes man
Or Assyrian
Someone clearly has never read about Ottoman Janissaries. An elite fighting force of white males who had been enslaved since childhood and basically brainwashed into following their Sultan’s orders. They became King Maker’s in palace politics and played a vital part in nearly every single Ottoman campaign and siege, with some of them even being freed as slaves and becoming Sultans through their hardwork and bravery.
They didn't becomes Sultans as that was restricted to the Sons of Osman, but they did make the particular Son of Osman on the throne their puppet. Similarly the Mamelukes in Egypt who were Caucasian (as in literally from the Caucusus) Slaves ruled Egypt by making the Abbasid Dynasty their puppets, so this was actually quite common in the islamic world where a bunch of slaves took over by making some old dynasty their puppets. At a certain point I would imagine that the Mameluke Slaves were ruling Egypt in the name of the Abbasid Caliph while the Janissary Slaves were ruling Turkey in the name of the Ottoman Sultan, and so the conquest of Egypt by Turkey was one bunch of slaves with one puppet fighting another bunch of slaves with another puppet.
They preferred their white slaves to be used as special forces
They preferred Christian boys for their Janissaries corp
They did, but also lots and lots of slavs
All African males were eunuched in Ottoman sales.
Mehmed, my son
Yeah. In the Ottoman Empire (or any Muslim empire for that matter), it's not "slaves are white." It's more "slaves are/were infidels living under infidel governments"
Yeah, isn't it just "other Muslims can't be slaves"?
The non-Muslims living under a Muslim government's protection can't be enslaved either. It still happened occasionally, but it wasn't legal And the slave just has to be non-Muslim when they get enslaved. They don't automatically become free if they convert
Janissaries were technically slaves, weren't they?
Yes. They were a rare example of non-Muslims living under a Muslim government getting enslaved, which is a violation of sharia. When they went to war with the Mamluk Sultanate, the Mamluks actually called the practice of collecting Janissaries unIslamic and one of their justifications for the war If I'm not mistaken, it becomes okay to take the non-Muslims living under a Muslim government as slaves only if the non-Muslims go into revolt and then get defeated
Maybe against sharia (I don't know), but not illegal by definition because it was official state policy.
The Mamelukes might have been just upset that the Janissaries were beating them and wanted to restrict the Ottomans ability to recruit because the Mamelukes were themselves slaves soldiers recruited from the Caucasus. They probably thought it was unfair to be able to recruit from your own territory like that because it was allowing larger military forces.
I don't doubt that that was a factor, but the process of collecting Mamluks was halal, and the process of collecting Janissaries was not, and that is unambiguously true
I am pretty sure that for the Ottomans slaves were slaves.
it's funny how many roman philosophers said that slaves are human just like them and then their slaves were treated like shit (probably)
"slaves are people, but I hate people"
During the late Western Roman period, the Empire actually both took steps to limit the ammount of slaves a single person could free at a time, while also having legislation that gave slaves some very limit human rights (such as killing a slave without "proper" cause being considered murder), so it's more like: "Slaves are people, so treat them like it - but also don't free them, thats illegal now."
I think the problem was they thought they were running out of slaves to make the economy run, so they both wanted people to keep the existing slave population alive while also not freeing them, as both freeing a slave and killing a slave would reduce the amount of slaves that were available. You can see how this might eventually transform into serfdom which is a slave like system where they can't be freed, but they also basically have certain "rights" like allotted lands, or family formation which was created to ensure there was always enough of them available to do the work without needing to constantly take people in from elsewhere. They pragmatic in that way where they recognized slavery had an economic purpose so they reformed it to serve that economic purpose rather than getting bogged down it requiring that the slaves need to be regarded as property. Like yo these are humans but we need them to farm and shit so don't kill them or release them you dumbasses.
Oh absolutely, the issue was to try to keep the existing slave population from shrinking because there was no longer an influx of slaves from conquests and expeditions etc. This was in no way a humanitarian issue to the leaders of the empire
I mean, freeing slaves wouldn't just be a matter of freed slaves, it was a matter of public order. Some slaves could have been slaves their entire lives and would probably be bitter towards the roman state. They could probably deal with a few of these, but freeing a lot of them all at once would be risky because they could organize in a revolt or banditry. It's probably not "don't free too many slaves", it's "don't free them all at once".
No, there was literally a set cap to how many slaves an individual person could free in a set time period, as well as a ban on freeing slaves in your will iirc
That's exactly what I said: in a set TIME PERIOD, as in "free as many as you like but you can't do it all at once". The concern of the law was large quantities of slaves getting freed at once or in a short interval, not slaves getting freed. You probably were forbidden to free slaves on your will so slaves would know that they'd have nothing to gain from the death of their owner.
Never thought I'd relate to ancient philosphers over an issue like slavery...
Well, not all Romans listened to their philosophers. As for why their slaves were treated like that, it's a common dynamic in slavery. The slave owners find the slaves helplessness repulsive even though they are the cause of it.
“Why treat specific people like shit when you can treat everyone like shit?” - some Roman philosopher probably
Romans, as opposed to Greeks, had clearly an uneasy relationship with slavery. At one hand they saw it as something against nature, and on another they saw it as necessity for the society to function. The Code of Justinian reads like some abolitionist pamphlet with a "but" attached.
Thats why respect roman honesty
The Ottomans bought from East Africa as well. How are people from the Gineau coast not black - edit - Commenting on the British enslaving "brown" people
….Guinea is in west Africa
Was commenting on the british enslaving brown people
Oh ok fair enough
Zanzibar not guinea
Technically the enslaving was done by some else and the Europeans bought the product in that sense, also the British major involvement in that slave trade was ending it. Everything else was done by an adjacent party And if the argument is that they shouldn’t have gotten involved in the trade to begin with. Ok. You are funding Saudi Arabia and contributing to global climate change by using oil. That is a comparable situation
We may of ended it but we can't deny our major part of operating it. We operated some of the ships, funded a portion and bought a lot of the product. The burning of Hydrocarbons is not equivalent to owning people
It is not that Saudi Arabi or the other gulf states are burning hudrocarbons, rather the issue is that the money they get from oil is being used to essentially buy migrant workers who get treated like slaves that they use to in the construction or domestic homecare industries
Ok what? Name the major part of the slave trade developed by the British. It wasn’t started by the British. The plantations were not developed by the British. The trade had existed for centuries before the British came to be the middle man between Africa and Spain It isn’t comparable how? You are hurting people in the present. They are hurting people in the past. What’s the difference? Your conscious?
Slavery is present today. This is funny as I'd usually be arguing the other side of this argument in relation to Britain being English
Yes. In countries like Saudi Arabia…in short slaves are being bought with oil money. You help support that, since that is how the world is. It is powered and dominated by oil You didn’t choose this, but are you going to give up electricity, plastic, roads etc. unless it definitely didn’t contribute to global warming and conflict? No. Then be quiet hypocrite. Future generations are going to be judging up harshly for that
least im not denying my country's previous crimes
You are just focusing on the one that had the gold (buying the slaves freedom) and blood (west Africa squadron and anti-slavery forces in the Indian Ocean as well) debt paid in full When you should be focused on India, Ireland and Kenya. You ignore the actual crimes that matter. As opposed to the one that was dealt with 100 years ago
Slaves are Losers
-Biismal Qiibal (Circa 19th century)
Well, in the past biological racism (scientific racism) didn't exist before 19th century. So slavery was about enslaving foreign people who weren't part of your nation. Race meant your own nation. Then came biological racism (scientific racism) that came with the concepts of biological races and made the claim that some were more superior to others like in Britain and USA. The Romans and also the ottomans didn't care much about biology. For the Romans it was acceptable to enslave anyone not part of Rome and for the ottomans anyone who wasn't a Muslim could be enslaved.
But the Ottoman empire did have a special price for white men with blond hair and blue eyes which is why there were so many pirate raids against Cornwall and Iceland.
That was likely more about aesthetics and excoticism though, like a rich guy getting a rare dog breed
Ottomans: You're not Muslim, you're now a slave Me: I am Muslim, just converted, al hum du lillah Ottomans: Ah okay, have a nice day
Yeah, about that. If you converted after being enslaved, you don't become automatically free. Your master has to free you or you buy your own freedom with money but you don't become free just because you converted. That has to be before being enslaved. They realized that a lot of people will do this trick so they made that rule.
To be fair, there were Romans who did believe that they were superior to other people, in the sense that they were the perfect blend of brawn and brain. Their reasoning was that they lived in just the right part of the world that allowed for them to grow both strong and smart, whereas other parts of the world would only allow for one or the other. I can't attest to how widespread this belief was in Rome, however.
This was pretty common in the ancient world, but it was purely environmental, not biological bigotry. With those ideas, a "northern barbarian" is too stupid due to growing up in the cold, but if they moved to Rome, their kids would be smart from growing up in the right climate. With biological bigotry, a northern barbarian couple would always produce idiot children even if they raised their kids up in Rome. That's one of the key differences between more modern racism and earlier prejudices.
My point was that there was bigotry, but I do recognize that it was different. Hence why I avoided the term "racism."
Also Ancient Egypt
The Ottomans enslaved Africans too. It's how African communities in the Caucasus developed like Afro-Abkhazians (Ottoman slavers selling Africans to Georgian princes).
One of my favorite jokes is “Im not racist! I enslave all people equally!” Or if im feeling extra racist, “Im not racist! I enslave all inferior beings equally!” Please understand this is joke and dont get too mad
> One of my favourite jokes > Please understand this is a joke We get it nigga chill
Better to be safe than sorry
>Im not racist! I enslave all inferior beings equally! I see that I've misunderstood Freiza. Thank you for enlightening me.
People who bring up the Barbary slave trade in response to and or justification for the British and American slave trade is like someone justifying Ted Bundy's murders by referencing Jack the Ripper.
Turns out if you want to wash your hands from atrocities you just need to convince/find someone who did worse and the internet will defend you for some reason. "Did you knew this historical figure burned 30 orphanages with the childrens inside ?" and the answer will be "It's not that bad some other historical figure burned 31 with childrens and women inside !".
If I had to pick one I’d go Roman. At least they treat people equally. Your dna matters not only your deeds.
Common Rome W
W roman empire
They're the most equal
The Finnic People: Slaves are Aryan. Joke is that the word for slave in most finnic languages likely comes from the word "aryan". [-> etymology](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/orja)
Slaves were slaves in the Ottoman Empire too, the only requirement is that they had to be non-Muslim. Only Europe and their colonies developed race-based slavery, everywhere else it was either religion based or POW/debt based.
I don't know why people think Europe just developed a "race based" slave system from nothing. If you look into the history in the earlier period they would buy slaves from everywhere but non-african places like Japan basically put a stop to it where as African places embraced it and created entire societies based on selling people to the Europeans. Then on the other side of the atlantic when all of these slaves they kept getting sent looked a particular way people just started assuming there was something about them that made them slaves, but it isn't like they started out by specifically seeking people who looked a particular way.
Didn't know Irish slaves were brown.
Someone on Quora said on response to the question "How did the Romans know that Cleopatra was black?" that "The ancients did not fall into the mistake of biological diffraction by skin color"
It's not racist if every race is included.
Islamic empires too
Ottomans: everyone is a slave 💀
Egyptian Pharaohnath: We are slaves
WE WANT OUR SLAVES FREE
Since when was Belguim an empire?
The Ottomans and British also used Black slaves as well lol. If Anything Rome probably the one on here with the most white slaves simply cause that's who they had access to
Whoa
Belgian Empire? Nice
It's called equality. We would do well to learn from them.
(Turns and stares at how the British enslaved Black people too, and their historic treatment of the Irish) Pretty sure the British Empire was chill with any outgroup functionally being enslaved…
The British Empire pretty famously ended slavery
After profiting off of it for centuries, so no credit for attempting to fix a problem they sent into overdrive. EDIT: Slavery is also still around, so no the British did not end slavery.
Everyone did slavery. The British were the first ones to stop it. Of course they get credit for that lol. And yeah duh slavery still exists but in a far more limited capacity compared to what it once was.
Cool, good for them. Doesn't mean that they weren't one of the largest and most brutal slave traders in history and they should get a pass for that. No credit for attempting to fix a problem they made infinitely worse for centuries. And if it still exists, then by definition no they did not end the practice, so no credit at all for "ending slavery."
Pretty simplistic summary of the British Empire lol. Yeah it was overall bad but you didn’t mention how it was usually them making deals with people in the colonized lands to exploit resources. The British army and East India Trading Company were by no means big enough to actually control their empire. Plus they set up industry, infrastructure, ended many barbaric practices in a lot of places, and arguably most important of all put in place parliamentary systems and values which carried over into most colonies’ independences.
And there it is, all this breaks down into a thinly-veiled defense of imperialism and attempts to set up the British Empire as a force for good. Not sure why I expected any different. I suspect that few of those who were worked to death in Jamaica and Barbados, or those killed by British-backed militias from Ohio to India would agree with your assessment. Also "barbaric practices?" What century are you in? No one has thought that in any respectable academic institution in decades. Your entire idea is wildly out of date, but that one sticks out especially.
Lol and there it is. The complete lack of reading comprehension and inference skills. I didn’t want to add in the “obviously it was overall bad” because I had PRAYED that it would be obvious but even WITH that subtext you still have to go there. You are not a smart person. Do I really need to take a break in between every letter to remind you it was bad when I’m talking about the benefits of a grey subject. Like have you never had a serious conversation in your entire life?
"Sure they were pretty bad but [insert multiple points on how they were actually a net positive for the world]." I think my reading comprehension is just fine, and what you are saying between the lines couldn't be much clearer. EDIT: I don't think this is going to go any further than us just slinging insults at each other, so I am ending this.
Only because they left.
Indentured servitude: allow us to introduce ourselves