Never is a hard word. Let me explain: In the US the white were masters and the black were slaves. A white was rarely a slave, a black person was likely a slave. And slavery was not abolished that long ago.
In MANY countries people of color X enslaved people of color X. So now - many generations later - no one knows anymore who was slave and who was master. So the term master is insignificant for the individuals in the country and dominantly associated with mastery in something.
So while technically the statement is correct, for the discussion here, many countries are not having an active discussion around slavery because it is no concern in the society because there are not slave-descendants (which are mistreated until today) vs. master-descendants.
And is there a relatively distinct group of their descendants being pulled over by the police today in Morocco, after continuously being excluded from economic progress for a few hundred years? Actually really curious -- one of the "innovations" of US slavery was the slavery of the descendants of slaves -- was that the case in northern Africa? I think not; if you have some evidence otherwise happy to think about it.
> after continuously being excluded from economic progress for a few hundred years? Actually really curious -- one of the "innovations" of US slavery was the slavery of the descendants of slaves -- was that the case in northern Africa? I think not; if you have some evidence otherwise happy to think about it.
No, if you read the article eitland posted (no judgment, I don't know) then you'd see that it was Muslims that was behind this slave trade.
One of their habits (or "innovations" in your terminology) that we don't often talk about was that of literally emasculating (in the literal sense) male captives.
This explains a whole lot of why there isn't a white population like the black in US.
Another explanation is that some where bought out from slavery by relatives in Europe.
You should read up on this.
You'll find that compared to the Arabic slave traders (that the Western slave traders sourced from), Western slave traders were kind of nice (edit: or smart, or less sadistic or something).
Oh, and their slave trade didn't end until much later, if ever. (Ever heard about how facilities for a certain sports event in Qatar were built?)
Why don't we talk about this? Sources are after all plentiful.
Edit: Let me add my guess: it doesn't fit the narrative that white, Christian men are worse than everyone else.
Less than 1% of American whites during slavery owned slaves. In fact, the most identifying characteristic of American slave-owners was Judaism. You could just as easily say that Jews were masters and blacks were slaves, although your argument would be equally as incorrect and ignorant. To say that "whites were masters" is just as ignorant as saying "all 1940s Germans were Nazis".
Your comment is as reductionist as it is to call all slaves black.
What about Romans using Germanic slaves or ancient Greece? What about the Middle East, past and to some degree present? What about the Mongols or China?
What about Romans using Germanic slaves or ancient Greece?
British people have been enslaved at various times by the Romans, the Normans, the Vikings, the Moroccans and probably more besides. This is a matter of history that we are all aware of. But there is noone living right now who was ever a slave of a Norman nor are there any French who ever had a Saxon slave.
You are right. Smaller groups/tribes remember in many more countries. Like you said, skin color is maybe not the best example.
Take my situation: I am a German. Our slavery ("Leibeigener") cannot be seen in todays society. It cannot be seen by skin color or any other attribute.
I try to void the statement "Tell me a society which never had no slavery". My argument is: There are societies which had slaves which you cannot reflect in today society. No ones knows, no one is affected.
We have tons of other problems (like the Holocaust and tons of other crimes) we have to work on still today, but slavery among the German society (being a problem today) is no such problem. And I guess, there are many countries where this applies.
I would still consider trafficking of people slavery in everything but name and that is still going on right under our noses all over the world. Hardly anyone cares about that.
Yes. And there are enough places in the world where the "slaveowners" were those who, if I'd named them, I'd be immediately considered here as a "racist" for just mentioning the historical fact.
So... I guess we all have to learn that there are more contexts than just one.
> And there are enough places in the world where the "slaveowners" were those who, if I'd named them, I'd be immediately considered here as a "racist" for just mentioning the historical fact.
You're clearly hinting at something specific, though I don't know what it is. Mind explaining?
Also try to figure out why would the current derogatory term for slaves in South Africa have its origin in the word meaning "the unbeliever" in Arabic, i.e. one who's not an adherent of certain religion, as used in their religious texts:
In MANY countries people of color X enslaved people of color X. So now - many generations later - no one knows anymore who was slave and who was master. So the term master is insignificant for the individuals in the country and dominantly associated with mastery in something.
So while technically the statement is correct, for the discussion here, many countries are not having an active discussion around slavery because it is no concern in the society because there are not slave-descendants (which are mistreated until today) vs. master-descendants.