Vorkosigan

The Italian city-states engaged in a lucrative trade with Constantinople, which brought in WHITE slaves from the Balkans, Thrace,
southern Russia, and central Anatolia for resale in the West. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flow of white slaves from these regions
was cut off, leading to a demand for a new source.

Historical tidbit: during this period there was also a thriving trade in slaves from Central Asia into Italy.

Sojourner553

Regarding:
========================================
The Italian city-states engaged in a lucrative trade with Constantinople, which brought in WHITE slaves from the Balkans, Thrace, southern Russia, and central Anatolia for resale in the West. With he fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flow f white slaves from these regions was cut off, leading to a demand for a new source.

Historical tidbit: during this period there was also a thriving trade in slaves from Central Asia into Italy. --Turtonm

============================================

I'd be interested in details on this if you have it. By central Asia do you mean China or Mongolia?

thanks! Sojourner

Haran

ex-preacher,

Since this is close to your field, I'd like to tap your knowledge.

I do want to look into the issue of slavery further.

I'd like to know if you (or anyone else) has heard of Moses I. Finley's Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. Is this a reputable source? I happened to run across it at a bookstore and it seems to be a relatively good source.

I still believe that Christianity, properly practiced, as based on Christ (who is after all the base of Christianity), does not support and encourage slavery (in the sense of slave trading and being an owner and master of slaves). How can one trade in slaves with the Golden Rule in mind? How can one wish to be a slave owner when Jesus mentions that "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave" rather than "lord it over" others like the Gentiles? Seems to me that if we all become slaves/servants of one another, as suggested by Jesus, slavery as an institution would cease to exist. At the very least, true followers of Christ would be the slaves and not the owners and traders.

Haran

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Needham discusses this luxury trade in exotic slaves in Science and Civilization in China, in volume one, I think. He identifies it as a possible route for transmissions to Europe of technology. He means, I think more mongolia and turkic central asia than Han China proper.

michael

Vorkosigan

Here is a review. Seems Legit.
<a href="http://www.markuswiener.com/reviews/finley.htm" target="_blank">http://www.markuswiener.com/reviews/finley.htm</a>

Haran, I can agree that with that interpretation, slavery cannot be practiced by Christians. But that is just one interpretation. But the issue isn't really that. It's the moral failing of Paul and Jesus in not recommending loudly and firmly that slaves be released.

Michael

NOGO

The question that I have is this.
Is the above quote the same as saying "You shall not have any slaves"?
It isn't! The historical evidence is that this is not the interpretation that most people gave it.
We can sit here and argue that these people did not follow Jesus' intent but that is purely academic.

I do believe that a clear and unavoidable statement such as "You shall not have any slaves" would have had an impact on history that your quote obviously did not have.

Now was Jesus (if he was God etc.) interested in academic discussions in the 21st century or was he interested in having a positive impact on history?

Sojourner553

__________________________________________________ _
I still believe that Christianity, properly practiced, as based on Christ (who is after all the base of Christianity), does not support and encourage slavery (in the sense of slave trading and being an owner and master of slaves). How can one trade in slaves with the Golden Rule in mind? How can one wish to be a slave owner when Jesus mentions that "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave" rather than "lord it over" others like the Gentiles? Seems to me that if we all become slaves/servants of one another, as suggested by Jesus, slavery as an institution would cease to exist. At the very least, true followers of Christ would be the slaves and not the owners and traders.
Haran
______________________________________________

As Michael pointed out the problem is that slaveholders could point to the ABSENCE of
commandments against slaves -- and also torture
in the Ten Commandments.

Also, slaveholders had a wealth of OTHER verses in the Bible that seemed to condone slavery:


Use of Biblical Texts to Argue "FOR" Slavery

--Old Testament Support for Slavery

First, pro-slavery advocates argued that bondage was an accepted institution
throughout the OLD TESTAMENT:

* Leviticus 25 discussed "buying, selling, holding and bequeathing
slaves as property." Some of the Old Testament patriarchs--Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and even Job held slaves.

* The prophet Isaiah appeared to acknowledge the institution of
slavery when he wrote how God's destruction of the world would
be the same "for master as for servant, for mistress as for maid."

The image of the inherently lazy black Africans who would not work unless
enslaved was believed to be found within Proverbs 12:24:

* "The hand of the diligent shall rule: but the slothful shall be
under tribute."

Some defenders of slavery argued that when Cain was banished to the
Land of Nod, he bore the mark of black skin. (It did not bother them that
there was no mention of black skin in the Old Testament), Thus, slavery
could be supported based on "just punishment" for sins. They also looked for
support in Deuteronomy 28 where God warned that he could return them to Egypt
as slaves if they disobeyed Him.

However, there were important differences. For the slaves in the Old
Testament were NOT BLACKS--but other hebrews or semitic peoples. Also, there
were passages in the Old Testament indicating that slaves in ancient Israel
could hold certain rights. All ancient Hebrew slaves could be redeemed by
anyone (including themselves), and were to be automatically set free after
six years of servitude (or at the time of the jubilee" (see Leviticus 25:8-16)

Therefore, what was needed from the pro-slavery vantage point was a
verse that targeted BLACKS as an inferior race whose DESTITY was to wait
on the other races. The Genesis story of Noah and his three sons Japthah,
Shem, and Ham -- was used (some might say abused) to justify this position.

The "HAM" Story from Genesis

The Genesis story of Ham, (see Genesis 9:21-27), goes like this:

Noah after sleeping from a drunken stupor, was seen lying naked by his son
Ham who thought it was funny and told his other two brothers, Shem and Japtheth
about it. Shem and Japtheth felt Ham wasn't showing enough respect, and
covered their father in a robe, all the while being careful not to directly
look at their father's nakedness. When Noah later awakened and found out
what happened, he cursed his son Ham saying that as punishment his descendants
would be a "servant of servants"-i.e., a slave--to the descendants of his other
two brothers Shem and Japtheth.

Slave defenders latched on to this Old Testament story to proclaim that
God Himself had divinely ordained the black man's enslavement from this
one incident.--That is, the three sons of Noah were viewed as the founders of
the three races--with Japtheth as the father of the white race, Shem of the
yellow race, and Ham of the black race.

Of course, the Bible NEVER ANYWHERE identifies Ham (or anyone else for
that matter) according to race.--Therefore Ham COULD just as easily have
been brown, yellow, Jewish (say another tribe), or yes--even white. But
slaveholders needed justification for the enslavement of blacks. So
Ham was pronounced--"black"!

Pro-slavery advocates also never seemed bothered why a good and just God
would single out a whole race of individuals for such terrible punishment--
just because an ancient ancestor had laughed at his naked father who was
sleeping off a hangover. The abolitionist Goldwin Smith wrote contemptuously
on how his pro-slavery opponents interpreted this biblical passage in their
favor:

"So scrupulous is the reverence of the slave-owners for Scripture, so great
is their zeal for God's honor, that upon a merely conjectural interpretation
of a passage in the most obscure and difficult part of the Bible, they
feel bound to condemn to hopeless slavery on their plantations a whole race
of mankind who, in common with other races, have been redeemed by Christ."
(Ibid)

NOGO

It is precisely because of interpretation such as these that Jesus/Yahweh needed to make an irrefutable and inescapable statement on slavery.

Sojourner553

According to a book I have entitled the HISTORY OF SLAVERY, the Muslims had a more humane version of slavery during the sixteenth-mid nineteenth centuries.

"In the Muslim world, slaves were mainly used in domestic service and the
only widely practiced cruelty was emasculation to provide eunuchs for harems."

However, I have recently seen a book advertised that seems to imply the Muslim black slave trade was just as cruel as the one in the West.

Anyone have any specific information on this?

Sojourner