Barbary Pirates

[Gitfiddle Jim]

I was astonished to read the other day that between the 16th and 19th centuries, 1.25 million people from the Mediterranean coast were captured and sold as slaves by the Islamic pirates of North Africa, working with the Ottoman Empire. Some of these were from as far afield as Britain, Holland, France and Ireland and even Iceland and Scandinavia.

If there's any truth in this how come it's never mentioned?

[Invader Zim]

I was astonished to read the other day that between the 16th and 19th centuries, 1.25 million people from the Mediterranean coast were captured and sold as slaves by the Islamic pirates of North Africa, working with the Ottoman Empire. Some of these were from as far afield as Britain, Holland, France and Ireland and even Iceland and Scandinavia.

If there's any truth in this how come it's never mentioned?

Yep, its true. The slave trade from North Africa and the Middle East has been carefully explored by historians, but it has never had the social impact that the Trans Atlantic slave trade has. Between 650 and 1900 some estimates place the slave trade in this region to have placed upto 7 million people in bondage, though modern revisions have reduced this figure to 3.5-4 million. Primarily these slaves came from Trans-Sahara African slave trade.

[Dimentio]

The place in Europe most desolated by slave-hunters was the Russian plains which were ravaged by Crimean Tartars in the 16th and 17th centuries. The word slave is derived from the word "Slav".

[Invader Zim]

The place in Europe most desolated by slave-hunters was the Russian plains which were ravaged by Crimean Tartars in the 16th and 17th centuries. The word slave is derived from the word "Slav".

Interesting, I have not heard that before, though it certainly sounds plausable. In the medieval period, 'slave' or at least similarly spelt or pronounced words were used. According to the OED that word is 'sclaue' first employed in 1290, and the word for 'Slav', appears first as 'Sclaves' (the 'u' and 'v' in medieval English being interchangable remember) being employed in 1387.

[Dimentio]

Interesting, I have not heard that before, though it certainly sounds plausable. In the medieval period, 'slave' or at least similarly spelt or pronounced words were used. According to the OED that word is 'sclaue' first employed in 1290, and the word for 'Slav', appears first as 'Sclaves' (the 'u' and 'v' in medieval English being interchangable remember) being employed in 1387.

"Slava" actually mean "glorious" in Russian.

Until the early 18th century, it was quite usual with white slaves in the Carribean and North America. Slavery was existing in all colonial possessions in that time.

[Luís Henrique]

I was astonished to read the other day that between the 16th and 19th centuries, 1.25 million people from the Mediterranean coast were captured and sold as slaves by the Islamic pirates of North Africa, working with the Ottoman Empire. Some of these were from as far afield as Britain, Holland, France and Ireland and even Iceland and Scandinavia.

If there's any truth in this how come it's never mentioned?

Probably yes, though I am not sure about hte numbers.

"Slavery" in the Ottoman Empire was a completely different institution than in Colonial Americas, though.

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

Probably yes, though I am not sure about hte numbers.

"Slavery" in the Ottoman Empire was a completely different institution than in Colonial Americas, though.

Luís Henrique


I don't know about in the Ottoman empire, but slaves in much of the Middle East could become free and even rise to the point where they could own their own slaves. Certainly that was not the case, for the most part, in the Colonial Americas.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't know about in the Ottoman empire, but slaves in much of the Middle East could become free and even rise to the point where they could own their own slaves. Certainly that was not the case, for the most part, in the Colonial Americas.

Becoming free and owning slaves was not that rare even in the "New World". But becoming generals, and in practice holding power, like the mamelukes in Egypt, that certainly was a Middle Eastern feature.

Luís Henrique

[palotin]

I wouldn't care to speculate too much on why it isn't discussed that often. Certainly it is amongst certain sections of the Right. Another black mark against religion and the State as far as I'm concerned. Funny how they do accumulate when you start doing a bit of reading. It is all true though. The real question should be what it means for our day and age. The slavery to which these abducted persons were subjected was of a completely different sort from the chattel slavery we Anglos saw fit to force on our fellow man. Small comfort, maybe. But it doesn't seem to have been the same sort of ethnogenesis. We certainly don't here much about a specific culture and society of decedents that exhibits a consciousness of itself as such and makes claims from that stand point. Not to say that slavery was ever 'gentle', but we ought always to remember that the colour line was born and remains with greater brutality and rigidity in Anglo colonies and countries.

-Palotin

[Dimentio]

I wouldn't care to speculate too much on why it isn't discussed that often. Certainly it is amongst certain sections of the Right. Another black mark against religion and the State as far as I'm concerned. Funny how they do accumulate when you start doing a bit of reading. It is all true though. The real question should be what it means for our day and age. The slavery to which these abducted persons were subjected was of a completely different sort from the chattel slavery we Anglos saw fit to force on our fellow man. Small comfort, maybe. But it doesn't seem to have been the same sort of ethnogenesis. We certainly don't here much about a specific culture and society of decedents that exhibits a consciousness of itself as such and makes claims from that stand point. Not to say that slavery was ever 'gentle', but we ought always to remember that the colour line was born and remains with greater brutality and rigidity in Anglo colonies and countries.

-Palotin

That depends on what those slaves worked with. It was not so comfortable to being a slave in an Ottoman mine. There was only a tiny minority of people who ended up in the haremes of the Sultan, and most of those were either being castrated (if they were male) or used for sexual pleasure (if they were women). The Ottoman Empire should in no way be glorified for anything other than it was, a brutal, traditional empire ruled by a corrupt bureaucracy which mercilessly exploited the people of the Middle East and the Balkans.

If we should say that the slavery of the Africans in America was a "moral crime", then we are putting Europeans higher than other ethnicities because we demand some form of moral "higher ground" from them than we expect from Africans, Turks, Indians and East Asians. In truth, all societies, First World and Third World, have been based on class exploitation and on the resource monopoly of elites.

Either, we should have a universal moral standard which should apply equally to the slave traders from Portugal as for those of the Ottoman empire, or we should outright dismiss moral responsibility and instead turn toward nihilism, where we only look at class strength as a foundation for history, without judging anyone or deeming anything - whatever how deplorable - morally "bad". Those two stances are consequent, while it is'nt consequent to somewhat see European crimes as morally worse than Non-european crimes.

[Luís Henrique]

I wouldn't care to speculate too much on why it isn't discussed that often. Certainly it is amongst certain sections of the Right. Another black mark against religion and the State as far as I'm concerned. Funny how they do accumulate when you start doing a bit of reading. It is all true though. The real question should be what it means for our day and age. The slavery to which these abducted persons were subjected was of a completely different sort from the chattel slavery we Anglos saw fit to force on our fellow man. Small comfort, maybe. But it doesn't seem to have been the same sort of ethnogenesis. We certainly don't here much about a specific culture and society of decedents that exhibits a consciousness of itself as such and makes claims from that stand point. Not to say that slavery was ever 'gentle', but we ought always to remember that the colour line was born and remains with greater brutality and rigidity in Anglo colonies and countries.

Slavery in the Spanish Caribbean and in Brazil was of the same "Anglo" kind, though. Not to talk about the Dutch...

Luís Henrique

[Cult of Reason]

I can confirm that the Barbary Pirates did capture people from Iceland.

[Holden Caulfield]

The Ottomans took a 'child tax' from Slavic peoples for many decades,
the core of its army was of well trained slave soldiers,
and it took tribute from its Tartar allies in the form of caputred Slavic slaves

my history personal study was on the Ottomans, i could go into detail but as you may have noticed im tooooo lazy to type long posts

[Sentinel]

slaves in much of the Middle East could become free and even rise to the point where they could own their own slaves.This would seem to have been a direct continuation of the kind of slavery present in the slave-labor society that was the Roman Empire. Many freed slaves acquired considerable power -- even though there were certain limitations for which official positions they (or even their children) could possess, they did often become very rich and wielded a lot of power 'behind the scenes'.

It also wasn't rare that their list of ancestors was forged later on. There are reported cases where freed slaves owned hundreds of slaves of their own, and some acted as advisors for the emperors.

[Unicorn]

Engels disliked the pirates. He thought that it was progressive that France conquered Algeria.


"Upon the whole it is, in our opinion, very fortunate that the Arabian chief has been taken. The struggle of the Bedouins was a hopeless one, and though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blamable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation. The piracies of the Barbaresque states, never interfered with by the English government as long as they did not disturb their ships, could not be put down but by the conquest of one of these states. And the conquest of Algeria has already forced the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli, and even the Emperor of Morocco, to enter upon the road of civilisation. They were obliged to find other employment for their people than piracy, and other means of filling their exchequer than tributes paid to them by the smaller states of Europe. And if we may regret that the liberty of the Bedouins of the desert has been destroyed, we must not forget that these same Bedouins were a nation of robbers, — whose principal means of living consisted of making excursions either upon each other, or upon the settled villagers, taking what they found, slaughtering all those who resisted, and selling the remaining prisoners as slaves. All these nations of free barbarians look very proud, noble and glorious at a distance, but only come near them and you will find that they, as well as the more civilised nations, are ruled by the lust of gain"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/22.htm