White slaves in Africa?

Leo Caesius

Banned
I think another thing that we're neglecting here is the fact that the sort of slavery that most people think about when they hear the word "slavery", namely plantation slavery, may have been typical of the Romans or the New World, but was not the norm throughout history or the world. Most of the slaves that were conquered in the Mediterranean basin were either put to work in the galleys or served in a variety of domestic capacities--they were not generally employed in agricultural work.

Even if the climate and diseases were not such a concern south of the Sahara, there simply would not be sufficient demand for slaves imported from abroad, since the demand could easily be met through local prisoners of war and the like. In the absence of a large navy or plantation-based economy, the demand will never grow large enough to change this.
 
I think another thing that we're neglecting here is the fact that the sort of slavery that most people think about when they hear the word "slavery", namely plantation slavery, may have been typical of the Romans or the New World, but was not the norm throughout history or the world. Most of the slaves that were conquered in the Mediterranean basin were either put to work in the galleys or served in a variety of domestic capacities--they were not generally employed in agricultural work.

Even if the climate and diseases were not such a concern south of the Sahara, there simply would not be sufficient demand for slaves imported from abroad, since the demand could easily be met through local prisoners of war and the like. In the absence of a large navy or plantation-based economy, the demand will never grow large enough to change this.

As I was saying, there are two types of slaves that would be in demand:

1. Sex. Probably not in much demand, since sub-Saharan Africans found Whites repulsive, but there's always fetishists. This is going to be a very, very small demand.

2. Skills. White slaves with valuable specialized skills would be in demand.

However, for both of these, the price will be low since they're survival rate will be so abysmal. Also, skilled slaves will be in demand at home. So, there's no incentive whatsoever for N. Africans to sell White slaves at lower prices than they can get in the Med region, or use themselves.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Why would sub-saharan Africa would be the one that was the lightest hit? ASB? Or is America the only one hit by an apocalypse? If that's the case, what's stopping the Europeans, Asians, etc. from taking America before them? And why would the Africans create a plantation slavery? Also, if there was an apocalypse that destroyed all technological levels, then how would the African overlords have the required technology to sail to America which take months with sail ships? I'm sorry, I never read the book, maybe you could enlighten me a bit about the plot and the setting of the book.
The bulk of the novel is set in the distant future rather than immediately post-apocalypse. The "white" peoples of the world (basically WENSA, the Soviet Union, and the East Asians) have wiped each other out in a horrific nuclear war, leaving a level playing field for the peoples of the Third World. They somehow merge, develop a universal language (something like Esperanto), and adopt a universal religion (loosely based upon Islam). Heinlein was decidedly not writing serious Future History here (and there's an AH element as well), but rather used this plot as a vehicle for some of his views about race, a bit like Dick's The Man in the High Castle.
 
As I was saying, there are two types of slaves that would be in demand:

1. Sex. Probably not in much demand, since sub-Saharan Africans found Whites repulsive, but there's always fetishists. This is going to be a very, very small demand.

Really? I didn't know that. Is there some reading material you could point me at?
 
2. Skills. White slaves with valuable specialized skills would be in demand.

But slaves without any particular skill are used too.
Not in great "haciendas" with many other slaves, but one slave for a repulsvie task (bruy dead people by exemple) or very exhausting task (use a press), etc.

It's an individual slaving which exists everywere in Antiquity and Middle Ages
 
But slaves without any particular skill are used too.
Not in great "haciendas" with many other slaves, but one slave for a repulsvie task (bruy dead people by exemple) or very exhausting task (use a press), etc.

It's an individual slaving which exists everywere in Antiquity and Middle Ages

My point is about white slaves in sub-Saharan Africa. It makes no sense to go through the expense of importing a non-skilled slave from Europe who has a greater than 50/50 chance per year of dying due to disease, forget the journey, when you can just snag someone a few miles away for free.
 
To start off I should like the other person get some stuff out of the way. Yes Im white and a strong American Christian. However Im not Islamicphobic (or what ever the hell you call it) . Proof. Well my best friend is an African American and Ive had many muslim friends of the years. One of the reasons Im proud to be an American but that isnt the issue here.

Now fo rme this is not my area of expertise. So I will not get into your numbers debate becuse I would probobly be improvising half the time which is not how you do debates.
However a couple of comments I have heard. Mostly Islam Bad and....

Using barbary slaves to relive guilt on American AAs slaves????

So first off the Islam bad. WHile yes many people have thier own objectives or adgenda. Actually everyone has one but still. While some people could post things that are blantly Islam Bad I dont think anyone has purposely insulted Islam.
While some people could over estimate the # of european slaves taken that is not nesscarly saying ISLAM BAD. But just well- getting it wrong. That like someone saying Christianity bad! by overestimating the number of Native Americans killed.
Yes it is one of the darker spots in American history when Christian American settlers killed Native Americans for a gambit of reasons. However if someone saying that we killed every last one. That would be incorrect. But not nessccerally saying Christianity bad. Just that many early amercians were jack***es.

Now the fact that were dodging old western slavery guilt. I could make a oke about how thats the funniest thing since duke but that would probably be inappropiate. You see I thought we established early in this thread that slavery not matter what race, religion or sex was it was BAD! And plantation slavery was certainly bad. I think it was horrible. But I dont lose sleep over it. Why should I have guilt over something that people did almost a hundred and fifty years ago. I dont expect people in in Libya to have guilt about any European slaves. And I dont think germans should be ashamed of themselves for the holocaust. Or at least modern germans born after WWII. It as horrible no doubt. But we had no chance to affect it or change its course. I think its up to us to learn from history and make sure that it never happens again. Thats what we should lose sleep over.

In my closing statements I actually have done some light reasearch into the Ottoman Empire. not the religion navy or culture of it. But Im very intrested in the history of the Jannisaries (bad spelling I know). And if Pasha new any good American novels I could read I would be interested. THough I wont say why Im interested in them because its kinda stupid and you might actullay get offened by it. Its due to my video game nerdness
 
Last edited:
To start off I should like the other person get some stuff out of the way. Yes Im white and a strong American Christian. However Im not Islamicphobic (or what ever the hell you call it) . Proof. Well my best friend is an African American and Ive had many muslim friends of the years. One of the reasons Im proud to be an American but that isnt the issue here.

Now fo rme this is not my area of expertise. So I will not get into your numbers debate becuse I would probobly be improvising half the time which is not how you do debates.
However a couple of comments I have heard. Mostly Islam Bad and....

Using barbary slaves to relive guilt on American AAs slaves????

So first off the Islam bad. WHile yes many people have thier own objectives or adgenda. Actually everyone has one but still. While some people could post things that are blantly Islam Bad I dont think anyone has purposely insulted Islam.
While some people could over estimate the # of european slaves taken that is not nesscarly saying ISLAM BAD. But just well- getting it wrong. That like someone saying Christianity bad! by overestimating the number of Native Americans killed.
Yes it is one of the darker spots in American history when Christian American settlers killed Native Americans for a gambit of reasons. However if someone saying that we killed every last one. That would be incorrect. But not nessccerally saying Christianity bad. Just that many early amercians were jack***es.

Now the fact that were dodging old western slavery guilt. I could make a oke about how thats the funniest thing since duke but that would probably be inappropiate. You see I thought we established early in this thread that slavery not matter what race, religion or sex was it was BAD! And plantation slavery was certainly bad. I think it was horrible. But I dont lose sleep over it. Why should I have guilt over something that people did almost a hundred and fifty years ago. I dont expect people in in Libya to have guilt about any European slaves. And I dont think germans should be ashamed of themselves for the holocaust. Or at least modern germans born after WWII. It as horrible no doubt. But we had no chance to affect it or change its course. I think its up to us to learn from history and make sure that it never happens again. Thats what we should lose sleep over.

In my closing statements I actually have done some light reasearch into the Ottoman Empire. not the religion navy or culture of it. But Im very intrested in the history of the Jannisaries (bad spelling I know). And if Pasha new any good American novels I could read I would be interested. THough I wont say why Im interested in them because its kinda stupid and you might actullay get offened by it. Its due to my video game nerdness

The Islam BAD! stuff is aimed a limited number of people who's position on a topic can be predicted before they even post something, not everyone in general, although the author of the book we've been referencing has a pretty clear Islam BAD! agenda.

People that like to use the Clash of Civilization model feel the need to demonstrate that Western Civilization is morally superior to Islam - and that means getting around certain inconvenient facts of history, such as the horrendous volume and cruelty of Western plantation slavery as opposed to the much more mild Islamic slavery, and the horrendous religious intolerance of Western societies compared to the relative tolerance of the Islamic world, until very recently. That means exaggerating slavery (and to make it more emotional and appeal more to racists, White slavery is focused on, when Muslims used way more Black slaves than White), as well as comb through the historical record for every bad thing any Muslim ever did to any Christian in order to demonstrate that these were worse than the total extermination of all Muslim populations that fell under Christian rule.

I don't know any novels about the Ottomans or Janissaries, but Leo Caesius might.
 
The only book I know off the top of my head is The Janissary Tree, which is set in 1826, just as the Janissaries are being broken up.
 
I think another thing that we're neglecting here is the fact that the sort of slavery that most people think about when they hear the word "slavery", namely plantation slavery, may have been typical of the Romans or the New World, but was not the norm throughout history or the world. Most of the slaves that were conquered in the Mediterranean basin were either put to work in the galleys or served in a variety of domestic capacities--they were not generally employed in agricultural work.

you're missing one more area: mining and quarrying. A lot of Americans captured by Algiers were put to work digging out rock that was used to improve their harbor. As you might guess, this was hard and dangerous work that killed a fair number of the workers. Of course, the majority of the miners were not white slaves, but local criminals. Still, it was a fate that could and did happen to captured crews...
 

stalkere

Banned
Why would sub-saharan Africa would be the one that was the lightest hit? ASB? Or is America the only one hit by an apocalypse? If that's the case, what's stopping the Europeans, Asians, etc. from taking America before them? And why would the Africans create a plantation slavery? Also, if there was an apocalypse that destroyed all technological levels, then how would the African overlords have the required technology to sail to America which take months with sail ships? I'm sorry, I never read the book, maybe you could enlighten me a bit about the plot and the setting of the book.

Third World War, the 1960's version. Lot'sa moster big city killers tossed at Warsaw Pact, NATO and SEATO. I Assume China is nuked big time, although it is never mentioned.

In this scenario, I'd assume a few nukes on Australia, mebbe a couple for the Kiwis, but why bother throwing a nuke at anything in Africa, or South America?

Most of the Northern Hemisphere is blasted, poisoned. The story is thousands of years later, the Africans have managed to recover some of their tech, and have essentially a 1950's level of tech.

The "Merkans" are barely out of the Neolithic. The Masters are slowly colonizing the Merkan continent setting up plantations and farms in the clear areas...struck me as more like the Spanish Mission style, but the Masters are ruthless with the Merkans, treating them as a subhumans, semi-intelligent animals, not slaves as you might think of the term.

The time travellers from 1960 are big trouble, most especially, Joe, the Afro-American servant who finds himself a "Master", but not comfortable with the idea. And the white Americans - Hugh Farnham and his family - are in for even worse problems.
 
you're missing one more area: mining and quarrying. A lot of Americans captured by Algiers were put to work digging out rock that was used to improve their harbor. As you might guess, this was hard and dangerous work that killed a fair number of the workers. Of course, the majority of the miners were not white slaves, but local criminals. Still, it was a fate that could and did happen to captured crews...

Note that in the Armenian Genocide article, there are no citations for the claims made about the lot of Barbary slaves. I can't claim that I know how they were used - I would presume as galley slaves and domestics mostly.
 
Top