Jared Diamond

[W|M]

Didn't slavery initially have a religious justification? I know the Portuguese brought Black Africans back to Europe as slaves on the grounds that they were Muslims and therefore deserved it.

While the Portuguese got a lot of Muslim slaves, especially during the 15th and 16th Centuries, most of their slaves weren't Muslim, and came from what is now Angola and Mozambique (at least in Brazil, where they needed huge amounts of slaves to work in the plantations, and later in the gold mines). The justification for slavery came from a more vague notion that black people had no souls, and therefore there were little to no ethical concerns regarding them. The fact that many of the slaves that the Portuguese bought were criminals certainly didn't reduce these beliefs, either.

EDIT: Note that the Portuguese didn't always religiously or racially justify slavery - Amerindians were often enslaved in Brazil, even though the Jesuits preached that Native Americans were pure and innocent beings, like children.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Portuguese didn't move into Southern Africa in any substantial degree until the 17th century, by which point the logic of religious opposition had been superseded by that of race. In the 15th-16th centuries, their slaves were taken from the predominantly-Muslim West Africa (where African slaves had been set to work on sugar plantations since the 1490s), and only moved further South when demand began to outstrip supply. A lot of these slaves may not have been Muslim themselves, but the Portuguese didn't seem to bothered about the fine distinctions; as far as they were concerned, a Moor was a Moor.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Those that weren't Muslim were pagan. If there were religious justifications, I doubt they were "enslave Muslims" so much as "don't enslave Christians." Therefore, the result would be the same regardless of how picky they were.

 

[TheLastOne36]

The Portuguese didn't move into Southern Africa in any substantial degree until the 17th century, by which point the logic of religious opposition had been superseded by that of race. In the 15th-16th centuries, their slaves were taken from the predominantly-Muslim West Africa (where African slaves had been set to work on sugar plantations since the 1490s), and only moved further South when demand began to outstrip supply. A lot of these slaves may not have been Muslim themselves, but the Portuguese didn't seem to bothered about the fine distinctions; as far as they were concerned, a Moor was a Moor.

This surprises me, as it was my understanding that although those Southern African portions didn't become Portuguese colonies until much later, Portugal had long since established outposts in those areas and had penetrated themselves strongly in the local trade routes. Why the preference for West Africans in the first place?

 

[cybrxkhan]

This surprises me, as it was my understanding that although those Southern African portions didn't become Portuguese colonies until much later, Portugal had long since established outposts in those areas and had penetrated themselves strongly in the local trade routes. Why the preference for West Africans in the first place?

They were closer to Portugal and there was already an established international slave trade network in West Africa for centuries if not almost a millenium.

 

[Lord Baal]

delete

 

[Masada]

That's not quite true. Europeans did insert themselves into the slave trade in some places i.e. in East Africa. But that wasn't the case in West Africa where Europeans created the trade almost from the ground up complete with new sources, suppliers, distributors and markets.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Has it already been mentioned that Europeans indirectly caused the shift towards a resurgence of slavery in West Africa, by importing New World gold which devalued the gold coming across the Sahara from the Malinese and Ghanans? Obviously not purposeful on their part, but an indirect cause nonetheless.

 

[cybrxkhan]

That's not quite true. Europeans did insert themselves into the slave trade in some places i.e. in East Africa. But that wasn't the case in West Africa where Europeans created the trade almost from the ground up complete with new sources, suppliers, distributors and markets.

They didn't create it so much as expand it to a scale unseen and unmatched in history. There was already the Muslim-dominated slave trade for centuries, and there were already constant slave raids in Africa amongst the Africans themselves. However, particularly in the case of the latter, slavery was a localized (perhaps even formal, ceremonial) affair, and one where the slaves still had some rights or at least still had some hope - they could be adopted into their masters' families, be allowed to return to their home after a small amount of time, etc.

But indeed you would be right when the Europeans added new sources, suppliers, distributors, and markets. So the trade already existed, but its scope was extremely limited compared to the Atlantic slave trade that grew out of it.

 

[Mouthwash]

I've heard people say that blacks were only slaves because their skin were more adapted to the Southern heat.

 

[Cutlass]

I've heard people say that blacks were only slaves because their skin were more adapted to the Southern heat.

Africans were preferential slaves for several reason. But the largest single reason was that Africans were a lot less likely to die of African origin diseases that became very common in the areas where slaves were the most profitable.

 

[Pangur Bán]

From my understanding, slavery wasn't really racial the way we think of it until the late 17th century. Iberians raided African regions for slaves not because they though blacks were worthy of it, but because the areas they used lacked state and military systems that would make it hard. What choice did you have when there wasn't enough labour in the New World to take advantage of all the land and resources? European areas were part of the same political system ... you would have to live with the religious and political consequences if you raided Ireland or Sicily. The Moors were generally too strong, not very populous and not very enthusiastic about selling their fellow muslims. Black Africa on the other hand was huge, and you could do what you wanted and get away with it, and you were in a position to motivate the natives to help you.

The racial justification is the product of this, it's not the other way around. You had free blacks and white slaves wandering around the Americas in the 17th century, wasn't that uncommon.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes, it's a common misconception that the Europeans invented the African slave trade. They merely inserted themselves into a pre-existing network. Their intervention did cause it to grow quie a bit, though.

Slavery was normal throughout the world prior to the age of discovery. Much of Europe in fact got its first cities in order to furnish the richer parts of the world with slave labour / sex.

 

[Crezth]

What choice did you have when there wasn't enough labour in the New World to take advantage of all the land and resources?.

This must be one of those rhetorical questions because it seems to me like you have a lot of choices before "abduct blacks and force them and their children and their children's children ad infinitum to do back-breaking labor."

 

[Pangur Bán]

No I mean Europeans operating in the New World couldn't practically get the labour to fully utilize the new resources without using slaves, and Africa was the most practical place to get them in large numbers.

One of the things you just have to accept about history, and indeed the modern world, is that people easily do nasty things when it suits them. Everyone here is using child slave labour in third world countries to source and construct the computers we use to 'save money', then whining about how evil past slave-raiders were without thinking twice. Ideological systems follow and justify need. We don't do slave-raids any more because we have more beneficial ways of extracting services from the politically weak. By any 'objective moral standard' we are as bad, if not in fact worse. If you waste time moralizing about the past you don't understand it any more and you don't become any more moral.

 

[Crezth]

No I mean Europeans operating in the New World couldn't practically get the labour to fully utilize the new resources without using slaves, and Africa was the most practical place to get them in large numbers.

A most succinct critique of capitalism as ever I've heard it.

One of the things you just have to accept about history, and indeed the modern world, is that people easily do nasty things when it suits them. Everyone here is using child slave labour in third world countries to source and construct the computers we use to 'save money', then whining about how evil past slave-raiders were without thinking twice. Ideological systems follow and justify need. We don't do slave-raids any more because we have more beneficial ways of extracting services from the politically weak. By any 'objective moral standard' we are as bad, if not in fact worse. If you waste time moralizing about the past you don't understand it any more and you don't become any more moral.

It's not "wasting time" to moralize about the past. Arguably it's the only really useful thing that can come from looking at the past. Moralizing about the past gives us context for our own behavior, and I believe it helps us become better people to do so. Looking at history with a cold, clinical eye is unserving, at least without an objective method of analysis. But as no law of human behavior has yet been derived, I think historical studies requires a softer touch than to say that moralizing about the past is a waste of time.

 

[Pangur Bán]

When we moralize about the past in such ways, it will always be to legitimize aspects of our society. So it's wrong I guess to call it a waste of time per se, since it is useful for social cohesion, 'legitimate' enrichment and so on ... but since by necessity it involves the creation of delusional narratives it cannot be useful for a historian trying to understand how such societies actually worked. Quite the opposite, moralizing like this is one of the biggest obstacles for understanding how past and present societies work.

You might even say the result is highly immoral, since not only will you be wrong , the self-serving narrative will also be legitimizing/hiding the bad things you do yourself (e.g. we were wrong and used slaves, but then we had a system of globalized treaty-controlled trade with immobile labour for the poories and mobile capital for the richies and we were all good again).

 

[Crezth]

When we moralize about the past in such ways, it will always be to legitimize aspects of our society. So it's wrong I guess to call it a waste of time per se, since it is useful for social cohesion, 'legitimate' enrichment and so on ... but since by necessity it involves the creation of delusional narratives it cannot be useful for a historian trying to understand how such societies actually worked. Quite the opposite, moralizing like this is one of the biggest obstacles for understanding how past and present societies work.

No, I disagree. I don't think that we need to harbor delusions about our own greatness to have a moral position on historical events, and I think that a moral position on historical events is required for understanding them. I don't think anybody who looks at the slave trade without making a moral judgement can be said to "understand" the slave trade, no matter how many facts, figures, charts, and graphs they have memorized. As I attempted to articulate before, human behavior is moral behavior, and divorcing the study of human history from ethical discussions is tantamount to a mental block.

 

[Pangur Bán]

No, I disagree. I don't think that we need to harbor delusions about our own greatness to have a moral position on historical events, and I think that a moral position on historical events is required for understanding them. I don't think anybody who looks at the slave trade without making a moral judgement can be said to "understand" the slave trade, no matter how many facts, figures, charts, and graphs they have memorized. As I attempted to articulate before, human behavior is moral behavior, and divorcing the study of human history from ethical discussions is tantamount to a mental block.

By all means, make private moral judgements. I personally deplore all kinds of exploitative labour, not just the kinds conveniently word-lawyered as a 'past activity' covered as 'slavery' -- but what I think will never matter, so who cares?

People live in their little reality bubbles. They learn that 1+1=2, that birds fly, that fire burns, they have theories such as causation that govern how they interact with the world, and they think that certain things are 'wrong' and 'right'. They get their education, and learn that in the past people used slaves, and 'explain' it by slotting it into their worldview invariably with something like 'people were bad then, but we are better so don't do it'.

The latter explains nothing. All bad means is that they did things we don't like, and carries the presumption that there is some 'objective' standard somewhere in the cosmos to which they could comply if they were just 'better'. Doesn't remotely explain why they did them in the first place, and encourages people to avoid actually explaining why things happen and avoid understanding the amoral processes of the universe we actually live in.

 

[Plotinus]

But you seem to be assuming a non-objective moral theory just as much as the people you're talking about assume an objective one. I don't see what grounds you have for calling their views "delusional narratives"; how do you know they're deluded? Why must a moral judgement of the past be necessarily deluded? Mightn't it be correct? Isn't the claim that all such judgements are solely done to legitimise the present itself a narrative which someone who disagrees can just as legitimately dismiss as "deluded"?