Talk:Slavery

Hmmm...
Says slavery has a long history throughout time then proceeds to spend 90 percent of the article talking about slavery in one country, the United States. I guess you guys are trying to promote the notion that slavery was somehow "worse" or "more cruel" in the Unites States when every indication is that the opposite was true. Never mind that the western world of the 19th century (though not America itself) was the first to actually try to start doing away with it. "But...Atlantic slave trade." Too bad only about 5 to 6 percent of the ships on the Atlantic passage went to America. And yes, slavery tended to be far more brutal throughout history and outside of the United States.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/ Burkean (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's what many editors know and it informs much of current American race relations. No reason not to add info about slavery elsewhere though.--TiaC (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the author/s of the article understand that slavery was far more brutal (though in the US already more than brutal enough) in other times, other parts of the world and that the west of the last epoch turned against that? If so, it is difficult to tell from the article, which spends almost 90 percent of the text on the United States. Perhaps create a separate article for slavery in the US, since it is a topic that is broad and covers almost all of human history. Burkean (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The information on this page is relevant to the topic of slavery. There is other information that would also be on-topic, but that does not mean that the page's current content should be removed, it just means that more content should be added. In addition, the fact that there were worse instances of slavery does not necessarily make them more relevant, because US slavery has consequences today in a way most of those instances don't. Also, 90%? It isn't even 50%.--TiaC (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if my tone in any way indicated that I wished for current material to be deleted, then no, I don't think that. And I agree, worse does not equal more relevant. There might have been "worse" instances of slavery in ancient cultures that we don't even know of right now. My point was merely that America was not the focal point for slavery, either historically, geographically, or in terms of cruelty (though, as I said before, well more than cruel enough already). As for importance today, I would say slavery of one form or another is a big part of why so much of the middle east is as it is today, just as important as Islam or western interference. From a political perspective, slavery in America is still very much important. But in terms of economic conditions in the black community, or the divorce rate, or some of the others things blamed on slavery, the evidence is not so strong. That, however, does not directly have anything to do with this article. To be fair to your point, the article seems more centrally focused on the Atlantic slave trade rather than America specifically. But even then, the Atlantic slave trade and America will often be mentioned in the same breath, when, as I said, only a small percentage of those who were victims of the Atlantic slave trade came to America. But again, I wasn't arguing for important information about American slavery to be replaced with something else Burkean (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See, I didn't know that about the Middle East. It sounds interesting, why don't you add that to the article?--TiaC (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you have probably noticed by now, I am not a very good writer. I think someone else could compile the information better. And there is a lot just in that article about the middle east. For something like this you need to be concise and not move around from one topic to the next in the same paragraph. Not exactly my strong points. Burkean (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "I guess you guys are" Nope, you guessed wrong. This article is Americentric because this wiki is Americentric. Deal with it. As to everything else you said: not as bad as/whataboutism. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Not really, because I wasn't saying we should talk about slavery in other places INSTEAD of America. It would only be whataboutism if the article were titled "slavery in America" which it isn't. It seemed to me that a large number of the contributors/commentators on this forum/wiki were from the UK, so I didn't realize that the wiki was de facto American centered. Perhaps just on this issue. Burkean (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of how the UK interacted with slavery was through the Atlantic slave trade, so it's still unsurprising that that focus exists.--TiaC (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Yet many people on the talk page were grasping at straws with "but in America...". Burkean (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Where does the info. for the map come from? What's the difference between the blue and blue-green? --Read-Write (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Future slavery?
Maybe the future slavery section needs to be worked on, removed or moved elsewhere. cc:  11:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are too kind by maintaining this section and adding a bunch of "citation needed" templates. I think the whole section needs to be deleted unless someone can dig out some references. At first glance the original contributor appears to be talking out of their butt. Also, the same IP added similar nsourced material to Cybernetic revolt. Cosmikdebris (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to just zap it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I initially didn't want to remove it because 1. I am not as informed on the subject of AI 2. I think it is an interesting debate on the humanity of AI (at least hypothetically). 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I would consider it interesting to expand the article on subjects like wage slavery and animal slavery (whether we consider labor performed by non-human animals to be slavery or not). 12:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There might be an argument to be had about that - but it seems pretty tangential to our goals. I would argue that we would first need a clear idea on the morality of killing and eating animals before we went down that route.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

About Link 56
The Independent article about slavery and Islam is cultural relativism at it's finest. "Yeah there was sex slaves but it was consensual sex slavery". Come on now, i wouldn't accept an argument from a neo nazi wingnut trying to defend confederate slavery like that, I won't accept an argument from a cultural relativist moonbat like that either. Look, I get the argument that the editor was trying to make. Slavery was common in every historical society from the Celts and Romans to the European Empires to the various African Kingdoms aswell as the Islamic Caliphate so it wasn't just an Islamic thing. I just don't think we should be linking to an article that defends fucking slavery on cultural and moral relativist grounds. That type of shit's been rightly torn to shreds on many RW articles before this. What do ye think?Evilatheistheathen (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible addition to pseudohistory
A fairly usual claim among the common internet Nazi these days regarding the Atlantic slave trade is the "hawdy ha-ha the slave traders/owners were not white but Jewish" which might be worth mentioning as well. Apparently stems – or at least received traction – from a 1991 Nation of Islam book. --2001:999:82:6053:98C:1483:21E7:FB19 (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Irish slaves.
I have just rolled back an edit which tried to include the mythical Irish slaves trope.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)