Talk:Slavery

Template:Vital article

Extremely incorrect sentence needs changing

This sentence needs to change BADLY:

-The first country to abolish slavery was the United Kingdom, where slavery was non-existent by 1200 AD and was legally prohibited under the Slave Trade Act of 1807 (although slavery remained legal in some British colonies until 1843).

This is wrong on MANY counts:

1. The United Kingdom did not exist in 1200, so already wrongly stated. For this to make any sense we have to look at England, Welsh polities, Ulster and Scotland separately.

2. None of them explicitly banned slavery by 1200 - it died out de facto by around 1200, but this was not unique to Britain. England had a prohibition on the slave *trade*.

3. Several countries simply did not have slavery at the time either. If we are including former state entities (or those which banned it then later had it), we need to consider ancient nations that didn't have slavery per se, even possibly including the Achaemenids.

4. The abolition of the slave trade in 1807 post-dates the slave trade ban in France, though France brought it back. Denmark banned the slave trade in 1803. Other parts of the world weren't involved in a slave trade. Britain was earlier than other major slave trading powers, so if the editor is a patriotic Brit they can be proud of that if they wish, but as it stands it is far from correct.

5. Going the other way, the ban on the slave trade is *not* when slavery was banned in Britain. England annulled slavery retrospectively in the Somerset vs. Stewart case in 1772, and Scotland banned slavery in 1799. The status of slavery in Ireland is a more controversial one, though the "United Kingdom" only began by that name in 1800. Again, these were not the *first*.

6. More a technicality, but slavery was abolished throughout all British colonies in 1833 effective by 1838, not 1843. 1843 saw its abolition in India, but India was not a British colony at the time, but under the East India Company - precisely why the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act did not apply there and other areas of East India Company rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.244.117 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ADD LEGAL DEFINITION OF SLAVERY?

California Penal Code 181 and use of word CUSTODY by Sheriff Probation and Parole Officers who are paid money to hold in involuntary servitude (this could arguably be Forcing people to report for duty/work/appearance/jury duty? without just compensation) The Justice System also caps wages at around .10cents and hour and wage garnishes that amount and money sent from relatives. I think the minumum was if not abided by and the maximum wage is around .31cents. I seek to employ prisoners! link at tiny. cc/jointventureproject see Joint Venture Project of CA TITLE 9 CCR Ca Code Regulations

Pasted/cited from https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-181.html Every person who holds, or attempts to hold, any person in involuntary servitude, or assumes, or attempts to assume, rights of ownership over any person, or who sells, or attempts to sell, any person to another, or receives money or anything of value, in consideration of placing any person in the custody, or under the power or control of another, or who buys, or attempts to buy, any person, or pays money, or delivers anything of value, to another, in consideration of having any person placed in his or her custody, or under his or her power or control, or who knowingly aids or assists in any manner any one thus offending, is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three or four years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7001:200:44EA:4BB0:2770:A417 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Far-left propaganda

Please remove the far-left propaganda in the "Terminology" section of the article, specifically the entire second paragraph and its nonsense about the word "slave" being somehow offensive to leftists. Slate is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD0A:FB00:DC06:2FA8:A094:C00C (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

1794 abolition in France

Thers a single sentence about France abolishing slavery crammed in between stuff about abolition attempts iin various American colonies. I call that anglocentric. Heck it was surely one of the things tat inspired the French people to endure the French Terror and stand up to the English and Germans even before Napoleon came to power.Rich (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

I ask for removal of citation 155 titled:" Indentured Servitude in Colonial America. Deanna Barker, Frontier Resources." as it is just a personal blog with a vague bibliography. (in case, editors should cite references therein) 2001:B07:A12:B90D:5DDE:4A71:135D:F7F3 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: The information is useful, and it is used for a rather non-exceptional claim. It works well as a link of convenience and if somebody has access to those sources to check then that would great, but I wouldn't deprive them of the opportunity to check up on these, so I'd rather keep the link as, I said, a link of convenience. What I am going to do is copy the bibliography here for future reference.

Extended content

James Curtis Ballagh. White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia. Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1895. Fredrick M. Binder & David M. Reimers. The way we lived: Essays and Documents in American Social History, Vol. 1; 1607-1877. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1992. Phyllis Cunnington; Costume of Household Servants from the Middle Ages to 1900. London, UK; Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1974. Joseph Doddridge; Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars. Parsons, WV: McClain Printing Co., 1996. David W. Galson; White Servatude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981. W. Preston Haynie (Ed.) Northumberland County Virginia Records of Indentured Servants 1650-1795. Heritage Books, Inc., 1996. Peter Kolchin. American Slavery 1619-1877. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1993. Abbot Emerson Smith; Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor in America, 1607-1776. Chapel Hill, NC.: University of North Carolina, 1947. Warren B. Smith: White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1961. Charles Woodmason; Journal of C.W. Clerk.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Please change "The word slave is derived from the Greek verb skyleúo, 'to strip a slain enemy'." to "The word slave is derived from Late Latin Sclāvus (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery in the Middle Ages." Please, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave#Etymology for sources. It was well established a long time ago. Крылатый вепрь (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Probbably not. Greek is often older than latin. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Latin word is from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβος (Sklábos), see that entry and Slav for more." You can read it directly in the wiktionary article I linked.

Ok, I offer a rephrased sentence: "The word slave is derived from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβος (Sklábos) (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery in the Middle Ages." Крылатый вепрь (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, I might add. The source for this "to strip a slain enemy" etymology is claimed to be "An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language, S (1891) by Friedrich Kluge" in teh Article. And boom: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_German_Language/Sklave It actually says nothing like that. It says exactly what I'm trying to say, which is pretty obvious thing established a long time ago. This "to strip a slain enemy" is completely bogus.Крылатый вепрь (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Said information was removed a few days ago by JimKaatFan, allegedly due to the references not supporting the written text. Perhaps this revision should be reverted, and the references from Wiktionary should be added to support said text. An even better idea would be not to remove text not supported by a source without even trying to find a source that supports it. --Raito wa Kira desu (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me if I take this opinion with a grain of salt. You have edited content on Wikipedia a total of 5 times? I removed the material because I checked out the sources and they did not support the article as it was previously written. I rewrote that sentence, and drew upon the source that's currently there to write it. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You sure you checked the sources in the article? Because you checked something else, check it again, here it is: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Etymological_Dictionary_of_the_German_Language/Sklave This is the source for the today article version. It says about Slav. Крылатый вепрь (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be reverted. Not with the "At a very early medieval date, when Christian government in most of Europe had collapsed, trading expeditions to eastern Europe brought back Slavs as slaves." in it. This is wrong. What christian government? What early medieval date? Slavs are slaves, because Slavs were a primary good in Europe throughout the middle ages up until the black slavery began. Not some "trading expeditions".Крылатый вепрь (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• In fairness, you did completely change the meaning of the paragraph - it stated that that the old interpretation was 'x' and you reworded it to say 'x' is true. The remaining source is from the 19th century. There are sources such as: https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter1.shtml ; https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/slave ; https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave ; which point to 'Slav' as the origin. I think your edit is certainly controversial in that sense. Are there recent sources which refute the 'Slav' origin of the word? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • His 19th century source doesn't even support his edit. It points to the version of Raito wa Kira desu. There is alredy like 4 people in this discussion and none have read a single link I provided. And completely ignore, that sources in the article doesn't even support what is written in the article. Крылатый вепрь (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there's 4 separate people in this discussion. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Sklavos < the ethnic name Slav is the only reputable etymology, as established above. --Macrakis (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Update - is everyone happy with the current state of the included definition and the cited sources? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Statements about slavery sentiment in US should be reworded

According to the current text "In 2018, the Orlando Sentinel reported some private Christian schools in Florida as teaching students a creationist curriculum which includes assertions such as, “most black and white southerners had long lived together in harmony” and that “power-hungry individuals stirred up the people” leading to the Civil Rights Movement.[218]"

It seems unnecessary to label this as "creationist" curriculum. Creationist theory at the core does not advocate slavery, however this statement suggests that there is a relationship between the two. The existence of flawed rhetoric in curriculum practiced by a group claiming to be creationist does not indicate any agreement with others following creationist thought. That word and subsequent hyperlink should be removed.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether this news report has any bearing in this context. The existence of a report exposing flawed educational materials in one locality does not demonstrate any further information about the progress of slavery in the generalized context of the United States. The citation itself provides little information to enable the reader to interpret what that information means in this context. It does not provide a balanced or expanded perspective of the US on the whole and therefore seems out of place in a section regarding the generalized United States. Regardless of how egregious, ridiculous or inaccurate such a curriculum might be, it does not serve the text of this Wikipedia article to mention this fact and this fact alone.