When and where did European colonial slavery begin?
November 7, 2010 7:11 AM Subscribe
When did the first Europeans enslave the first Africans, and what country did the enslaving?
I'm terrible with history. I'm aware that the United States and other countries enslaved Africans during the colonial era (of course), and that this phenomenon began and ended at different times (and in different ways) in different countries.
But which country was the first to systematically kidnap Africans and subject them to involuntary servitude? Where did this historical phenomenon begin? What flag did the first slavers fly?
Bonus question: is there any record of popular opposition to the practice when it first began? That is, did some portion of the enslaving culture stand up and say "hey, wait a minute, we probably shouldn't enslave people"—or was everyone pretty much cool with it?
I'm terrible with history. I'm aware that the United States and other countries enslaved Africans during the colonial era (of course), and that this phenomenon began and ended at different times (and in different ways) in different countries.
But which country was the first to systematically kidnap Africans and subject them to involuntary servitude? Where did this historical phenomenon begin? What flag did the first slavers fly?
Bonus question: is there any record of popular opposition to the practice when it first began? That is, did some portion of the enslaving culture stand up and say "hey, wait a minute, we probably shouldn't enslave people"—or was everyone pretty much cool with it?
From wikipedia:
The very earliest external slave trade was the trans-Saharan slave trade. Although there had long been some trading up the Nile River and very limited trading across the western desert, the transportation of large numbers of slaves did not become viable until camels were introduced from Arabia in the 10th century. By this point, a trans-Saharan trading network came into being to transport slaves north. Zanzibar was once East Africa's main slave-trading port, and under Omani Arabs in the 19th century as many as 50,000 slaves were passing through the city each year.[33][34] Most historians estimate that between 11 and 18 million African slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 AD to 1900 AD...
The Spanish were the first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola,[49] where the alarming death rate in the native population had spurred the first royal laws protecting the native population (Laws of Burgos, 1512–1513). The first African slaves arrived in Hispaniola in 1501 soon after the Papal Bull of 1493 gave all of the New World to Spain.[50]posted by delmoi at 7:25 AM on November 7, 2010
I think throughout history, Africans have been among a number of different races of people to be enslaved. Here's a picture of what looks like a number of African slaves in a slave market in Yemen in the 13th century. I'm not even close to being an expert, but it's been my understanding that slavery had been happening for a while to all different folks, including European people, throughout history. It's all about where the power is compared to who the weak populations are.
However, if you are purely talking about the Transatlantic slave trade, I believe Portugal was the first country in Europe.
posted by two lights above the sea at 7:29 AM on November 7, 2010
However, if you are purely talking about the Transatlantic slave trade, I believe Portugal was the first country in Europe.
posted by two lights above the sea at 7:29 AM on November 7, 2010
Wikipedia is great, isn't it?
posted by two lights above the sea at 7:30 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by two lights above the sea at 7:30 AM on November 7, 2010
Wikipedia is a great source for the basics of the history of slavery -- names & dates, etc. These are facts which no one argues about, and there is enough interest in the history of Slavery that the articles are well written and edited. (Unlike some more obscure historical topics).
/historian hat
to add to delmoi's comment --
The Spanish were the first Europeans to have slave colonies in the first world, but the Portuguese had slave plantations on their Atlantic island colonies a little bit earlier. (This isn't to exonerate the Spanish or any othe later comers, but it's very interesting to me that the form of slavery so associated with the Western Hemisphere began in the Eastern -- though one could argue that Portugal's Atlantic colonies were miniture "New Worlds" that set a pattern for the Americas.)
posted by jb at 7:33 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
/historian hat
to add to delmoi's comment --
The Spanish were the first Europeans to have slave colonies in the first world, but the Portuguese had slave plantations on their Atlantic island colonies a little bit earlier. (This isn't to exonerate the Spanish or any othe later comers, but it's very interesting to me that the form of slavery so associated with the Western Hemisphere began in the Eastern -- though one could argue that Portugal's Atlantic colonies were miniture "New Worlds" that set a pattern for the Americas.)
posted by jb at 7:33 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Don't forget that Columbus enslaved and eventually exterminated the indigenous inhabitants of Hispaniola.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:34 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by KokuRyu at 7:34 AM on November 7, 2010
Greeks and Macedonians living in Ptolemaic Egypt kept sub-Saharan (read: black) African people as slaves from the 3rd century BC, but people in the ancient Greco-Roman world were kind of equal-opportunity slavers and I haven't seen any evidence that there was any particular black=slave, white=free mentality.
posted by oinopaponton at 7:44 AM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by oinopaponton at 7:44 AM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
but people in the ancient Greco-Roman world were kind of equal-opportunity slavers and I haven't seen any evidence that there was any particular black=slave, white=free mentality.
At the time, a more likely dichotomy would have been Hellenised mediterranean people vs everyone else. Though many slaves were Greek or born in what is now Italy as well.
Britons, Gauls, and Germanic slaves were common in Rome because they could be transported by road. Similarly, slaves in the North African states would have likely been black sub-Saharan Africans.
posted by atrazine at 7:52 AM on November 7, 2010
At the time, a more likely dichotomy would have been Hellenised mediterranean people vs everyone else. Though many slaves were Greek or born in what is now Italy as well.
Britons, Gauls, and Germanic slaves were common in Rome because they could be transported by road. Similarly, slaves in the North African states would have likely been black sub-Saharan Africans.
posted by atrazine at 7:52 AM on November 7, 2010
Don't forget that Columbus enslaved and eventually exterminated the indigenous inhabitants of Hispaniola.
Exterminated makes it sound like they did it on purpose. How were the Spanish to know these people didn't have any immunity to smallpox? The concept of germs and immunity didn't even exist at the time, AFAIK.
I'm not excusing bad behavior by imperialist forces, but the truth is bad enough without embellishing it.
posted by gjc at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
Exterminated makes it sound like they did it on purpose. How were the Spanish to know these people didn't have any immunity to smallpox? The concept of germs and immunity didn't even exist at the time, AFAIK.
I'm not excusing bad behavior by imperialist forces, but the truth is bad enough without embellishing it.
posted by gjc at 8:49 AM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
Let's not forget either that the African slave trade couldn't exist without the deference (or outright help) of local African leaders who used the slave trade to diminish the ranks of their enemies.
Slavery has existed in some form since humans figured out how to amass tribal power. That's the whole story of the biblical Jewish people. When did European slavery begin? Right after they kicked out the Romans and built some boats.
posted by gjc at 8:56 AM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
Slavery has existed in some form since humans figured out how to amass tribal power. That's the whole story of the biblical Jewish people. When did European slavery begin? Right after they kicked out the Romans and built some boats.
posted by gjc at 8:56 AM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
Bonus question: is there any record of popular opposition to the practice when it first began?
Bartolomé de las Casas' protests against Spanish treatment of enslaved Indians led to the 1542 New Laws that prohibited enslaving Indians.
"Abolitionist sentiments "were widespread by the late 18th century." Slavery in England was ruled unlawful in 1772 and abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:03 AM on November 7, 2010
When did European slavery begin? Right after they kicked out the Romans and built some boats.
The Romans were never kicked out of Europe, they simply declined. And the ROmans had plenty of slaves themselves, sometimes from Africa.
As for opposition, maybe popular is going it a bit, but there has a long if not fully effective history dating back to the Roman Christianity. The Council of Granges 324 AD condemned it. Charlemagne was down on it. Several Papal bulls condemned it, notably Pope Paul III’s 1537 bull, Sublimis Deus,
For your purposes, consider Bartolome de Las Casas, who wrote In Defense of the Indians: The Defense of the Most Reverend Lord, Don Fray Bartolome De Las Casas, of the Order of Preachers, Late Bishop of Chiapa, (available in English on Amazon)
So, yeah - conscience did not make cowards of everyone, even back in the day.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:45 AM on November 7, 2010
The Romans were never kicked out of Europe, they simply declined. And the ROmans had plenty of slaves themselves, sometimes from Africa.
As for opposition, maybe popular is going it a bit, but there has a long if not fully effective history dating back to the Roman Christianity. The Council of Granges 324 AD condemned it. Charlemagne was down on it. Several Papal bulls condemned it, notably Pope Paul III’s 1537 bull, Sublimis Deus,
For your purposes, consider Bartolome de Las Casas, who wrote In Defense of the Indians: The Defense of the Most Reverend Lord, Don Fray Bartolome De Las Casas, of the Order of Preachers, Late Bishop of Chiapa, (available in English on Amazon)
So, yeah - conscience did not make cowards of everyone, even back in the day.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:45 AM on November 7, 2010
(Missed on preview because I broke for lunch)
posted by IndigoJones at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by IndigoJones at 9:47 AM on November 7, 2010
The modern slave trade, based around the plantation, was begun by the Portuguese on the sugar plantations of the East Atlantic islands in the 1460s, and Portugal was importing slaves as early as the 1440s.
Although, as sort of noted above, the idea of a slave-powered plantation goes as far back as the Latifundia system of the Roman aristocracy, that system did not feature the explicitly racial and religious overtones of western slavery.
posted by absalom at 10:28 AM on November 7, 2010
Although, as sort of noted above, the idea of a slave-powered plantation goes as far back as the Latifundia system of the Roman aristocracy, that system did not feature the explicitly racial and religious overtones of western slavery.
posted by absalom at 10:28 AM on November 7, 2010
Pope Eugene IV issued bulls condemning/banning slavery in the Canary Islands in the early 1400s, but I see from the linked wiki page there's some debate over whether he was tacitly approving enslavement of the unbaptised.
posted by Abiezer at 11:42 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by Abiezer at 11:42 AM on November 7, 2010
that system did not feature the explicitly racial and religious overtones of western slavery.
Which raises the question of what is meant by eastern slavery. Slavery in Islam had (and in places still has) the racial and religious overtones of which you speak. Is that east or west?
posted by IndigoJones at 4:27 PM on November 7, 2010
Which raises the question of what is meant by eastern slavery. Slavery in Islam had (and in places still has) the racial and religious overtones of which you speak. Is that east or west?
posted by IndigoJones at 4:27 PM on November 7, 2010
A large part of why there may not have been a widespread outcry against the White-on-Black slave trade is the fact that, by and large, there were not very many African slaves brought to the home nation to act as a labor pool. Slaves were mostly used in the colonies, whether that's the Americas or early Portuguese colonies in the Atlantic.
I'm not sure about other countries, but I know that the ownership of slaves in Britain proper was a relatively controversial issue. Nobody thought too much about what went on an ocean away on sugar plantations in the Caribbean, but people were squicked by the idea of black slaves in Britain. Not squicked enough to make it absolutely forbidden (though it later was banned), but it was certainly not a popular practice.
It also took a while for the institution of slavery to gel into a racial issue, and for the "white = free; black = slave" binary to fully take hold. There are accounts of slaves in colonial New York who were given their freedom on virtually the same terms as white indentured servants, for instance.
posted by Sara C. at 7:36 PM on November 7, 2010
I'm not sure about other countries, but I know that the ownership of slaves in Britain proper was a relatively controversial issue. Nobody thought too much about what went on an ocean away on sugar plantations in the Caribbean, but people were squicked by the idea of black slaves in Britain. Not squicked enough to make it absolutely forbidden (though it later was banned), but it was certainly not a popular practice.
It also took a while for the institution of slavery to gel into a racial issue, and for the "white = free; black = slave" binary to fully take hold. There are accounts of slaves in colonial New York who were given their freedom on virtually the same terms as white indentured servants, for instance.
posted by Sara C. at 7:36 PM on November 7, 2010
There are accounts of slaves in colonial New York who were given their freedom on virtually the same terms as white indentured servants, for instance.
Which in turn raises the question of degrees of servitude. Some allege that 19th century America was happy to put immigrants into really dangerous jobs because their potential loss in, say, a mining accident, was less troubling than the loss of a costly able bodied slave.
Whether true or twisted apologia, I do not know. But just as the difference between serf and slave might be lost on the individual, and a slave in, say, the Ottoman empire could rise to become effectively prime minister, the nomenclature can become fuzzy indeed.
(The Ottomans also practiced devshirme, where able bodied Christian boys were taken from conquered territories to become janissaries, the armed guards to the sultan and his shock troops overseas. Slaves again, and apologists for the Ottomans claim that Christian parents tried to bribe officials to take their sons because it was a better life. Me, I have my doubts, and certainly there was condemnation in the Greek Orthodox church from which these boys were taken - but again, it becomes a tangled subject.)
But which country was the first to systematically kidnap Africans and subject them to involuntary servitude?
"Kidnap" is loaded. Like as not, they were prisoners of war from Intra-African squabbles who were taken to the beach to be sold to passing Portuguese. Or kidnapped by other Africans. The whole Kunta Kinte thing is, shall we say, misleading.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:47 AM on November 8, 2010
Which in turn raises the question of degrees of servitude. Some allege that 19th century America was happy to put immigrants into really dangerous jobs because their potential loss in, say, a mining accident, was less troubling than the loss of a costly able bodied slave.
Whether true or twisted apologia, I do not know. But just as the difference between serf and slave might be lost on the individual, and a slave in, say, the Ottoman empire could rise to become effectively prime minister, the nomenclature can become fuzzy indeed.
(The Ottomans also practiced devshirme, where able bodied Christian boys were taken from conquered territories to become janissaries, the armed guards to the sultan and his shock troops overseas. Slaves again, and apologists for the Ottomans claim that Christian parents tried to bribe officials to take their sons because it was a better life. Me, I have my doubts, and certainly there was condemnation in the Greek Orthodox church from which these boys were taken - but again, it becomes a tangled subject.)
But which country was the first to systematically kidnap Africans and subject them to involuntary servitude?
"Kidnap" is loaded. Like as not, they were prisoners of war from Intra-African squabbles who were taken to the beach to be sold to passing Portuguese. Or kidnapped by other Africans. The whole Kunta Kinte thing is, shall we say, misleading.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:47 AM on November 8, 2010
Well, the period before the slave/indentured/free distinctions gelled into place was long before industrialization and the desire to hire immigrants into potentially life-threatening jobs because their lives were considered cheap. I'm talking about, like, the late 17th century.
But, yes, it's true that bonded labor certainly exists on a continuum and always has.
posted by Sara C. at 10:09 AM on November 8, 2010
But, yes, it's true that bonded labor certainly exists on a continuum and always has.
posted by Sara C. at 10:09 AM on November 8, 2010
« Older UK suits for the broader gentleman | Setting the Herbal Supplement vs Prescription... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jb at 7:24 AM on November 7, 2010