Reverted good faith edits by Jasper Deng (talk); Please don't delete or otherwise refactor others' comments. (TW) |
Undid revision 413824697 by Adamfinmo (talk)rolling back of my own reversion of a good faith removal of a comment per wp:notaforum |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
:As I recall (and I am no expert on English law) the prohibition of slavery in England was in Common Law, and not a legislative act. I seem to recall that a 16th century judge had ruled that a "Baltic" woman who had been brought to England as a slave was free because slavery did not exist in England. The 18th century case I recall revolved around whether ''habeas corpus'' applied to a slave who had been brought to England. The court found that it did, and (again, IIRC) cited that 16th century case. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 13:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
:As I recall (and I am no expert on English law) the prohibition of slavery in England was in Common Law, and not a legislative act. I seem to recall that a 16th century judge had ruled that a "Baltic" woman who had been brought to England as a slave was free because slavery did not exist in England. The 18th century case I recall revolved around whether ''habeas corpus'' applied to a slave who had been brought to England. The court found that it did, and (again, IIRC) cited that 16th century case. -- [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 13:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== slavery == |
|||
Slavery must be stopped it is a very cruel thing to do to buy a person for a mere ten pounds and then kill them.It is a very disturbind matter and more should be done about it. |
|||
== Edit request == |
== Edit request == |
Revision as of 05:44, 15 February 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Slavery in England?
The article contains the sentence: "The trade in slaves in England was made illegal in 1102."
Illegal or not, the English trade in slaves certainly didn't end in 1102, and that sentence needs to be clarified if it's even true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.33.203 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, I'm completely confused. I'm trying to understand how slavery came to be acceptable in the US. So what I am wondering is were there African slaves in England and the rest of Western Europe, and if so how prevalent was it and when did it stop.
Mystic eye (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Europe (after 1500) did not import slaves, except for some house servants in London and Paris. Europe had too many people in the first place and there was no need for slave workers. (The black slave/servants were luxury items for very rich men who owned plantations in the West Indies and lived in London or Paris). Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Slavery (..) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others". I'm looking for a definition of slavery and I'm afraid that sentence will not do. It could reasonably be held to be a pretty accurate legal definition (allowing for the emotive term "forced") of the situation of a wife in the UK until the 20th Century (and later in other countries). Even allowing for the somewhat unsatisactory arrangements regarding marriage in those times, I'm not sure that anyone would reasonably describe the role of "wife" as being the same as the husband's "slave". Is there a better definition I have missed?
More Irish were sold as slaves by the British to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas. The British engaged in the slave trade with vigor. They obtained slaves from both Africa and Ireland. While Ireland was the chief source of stock for the British, African slaves sold for 10 times what an Irish slave did. One British ship threw 132 Irish men, women and children overboard when food ran short. The "transportation" of slaves was outlawed by England in 1839, but not ownership. So the colonists continued to use slaves.
As to the equivalence of wife and slave, I see your point. I know of a couple that just divorced for that reason. In the Western world, when a wife finds that hubbie is a yahoo she generally gives him the boot. Alternatively, some feel trapped because of children and just start seeing other men. In the rest of the world it varies: In some Arabic countries a woman can divorce her husband by telling him three times "I divorce you". In India, divorce is virtually unheard of. Domestic violence is not. In many countries, large quantities of verbal abuse can straighten a husband out. Of course, there's always murder. Not unheard of even in the USA. I assume it provides a sense of satisfaction that divorce does not.
66.188.106.93 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Richard Rankin (richard.rankin@ieee.org)
Drg40 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I also would like to complain about the statement, 'The trade in slave in England was made illegal in 1102. The reference #64: the last sentence of that referenced article says, 'Yet centuries later Bristol was once again embroiled in that shameful trade.' Then if you go back to Wikipedia to the larger article about slavery in Britian and Ireland it talks about various indentured servants and also talks about the African slave trade started by John Lok in 1555. So, slavery did not completely end in 1102. I believe that to be deceptive. Also, if you look under the introduction of the Slavery in Britian and Ireland it says slavery was completely abolished with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. I think Wikipedia needs to get all these articles to coincide.Mylittlezach (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Slavery was indeed illegal in England, but that prohibition did not extend to English (British after 1707) colonies, not did it prohibit English (later British) citizens from engaging in the slave trade outside of England. English/British participation in the slave trade involved carrying Africans to America, primarily to the Caribbean. As a rule, there were no slaves carried on the England to Africa and America to England legs of the triangular trade route. Planters returning from the colonies brought some slaves back to England with them as servants, and that was more or less ignored for a while, but when a case was brought to court (late 18th century, I believe, but I don't recall the name of the case right now), the court ruled that since slavery had been illegal in England for centuries, any slave who was brought to England was automatically freed. The Act of 1833 abolished slavery in British colonies. The importation of slaves into British colonies (the slave trade) had been abolished earlier. I'll keep an eye out for appropriate sources to cite. -- Donald Albury 13:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
William Wilberforce was given all the credit for what thomas clarksen did which ended the slave trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.217.153 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
As I have been given to understand it, far from being made illegal in the era of the Normans, by Magna Carta (1215), by the Tudors, or even by Slave Trade Act 1807, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, or the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998 which did a number of things you might have imagined had been done a lot earlier in our history, slavery as such was apparently somehow assumed not to exist in England, and so was only actually made illegal in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which came into force on 6 April 2010.
In Section 71 of this Act, Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, see that Section in the government legislation website, it is enacted in the first clause that a person commits an offence if (s)he holds another person in slavery or servitude and the circumstances are such that (s)he knows or ought to know that the other person is so held (etc.). It is basic stuff, and it isn't merely a tidying-up of previous legislation (which sometimes happens such as in 1998), as far as one can see.
The Wikipedia article on this Act fails to mention slavery (a search for the word on the page today failed) so that should be greatly expanded if it is to attempt any degree of completeness of what that quite long Statute contains. Iph (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I recall (and I am no expert on English law) the prohibition of slavery in England was in Common Law, and not a legislative act. I seem to recall that a 16th century judge had ruled that a "Baltic" woman who had been brought to England as a slave was free because slavery did not exist in England. The 18th century case I recall revolved around whether habeas corpus applied to a slave who had been brought to England. The court found that it did, and (again, IIRC) cited that 16th century case. -- Donald Albury 13:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit request
In the 'Current situation' section, in the third paragraph, 'Enslavement is also taking place in other parts of Africa...' should intstead read 'Enslavement is also taking place in parts of Africa...', i.e. without the 'other'. No other part of Africa has been recently mentioned.
Done Thanks for catching that! -- Orionist ★ talk 21:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC) slavery is not allowed anymore. that i know of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.151.5 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The number of slaves today remains as high as 12 million to 27 million
I think this sentence is misleading. First, it is obvious that slavery is illegel everywhere. But by definition, slavery is a legal status. Thus all people who held in capture or forced to work are not slaves but captives or anything else. Also people who under different types of legel dependency are not slaves either. Sex trafficing is sometimes called slavary but this is a completely different term and should not be compared with legal slavery. I would add to this that slavery is by definition is ownership of another person by the owner. Since ownership is a legal category, just holding somebody in captivity or dependency does not amount to ownership. So I consider the applying the term to the modern human trafficing a case of allegory.--MathFacts (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
But why does slavery persist today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.113.108 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- @MathFacts: The article seems to wander between the original definition of slavery (a human being as the legal property of another), and the modern, wider description that includes forced labor, bond labor and trafficking. By looking at the article history it seems that much of that was added in recent months. However, the definition in the article's lead is lacking and needs a bit more detail. I've had a look at the Britannica article and their definition is much clearer:
“ | Slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons. There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else. In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate. They were objects of the law, not its subjects. Thus, like an ox or an ax, the slave was not ordinarily held responsible for what he did. He was not personally liable for torts or contracts. The slave usually had few rights and always fewer than his owner, but there were not many societies in which he had absolutely none. As there are limits in most societies on the extent to which animals may be abused, so there were limits in most societies on how much a slave could be abused. The slave was removed from lines of natal descent. Legally and often socially he had no kin. No relatives could stand up for his rights or get vengeance for him. As an “outsider,” “marginal individual,” or “socially dead person” in the society where he was enslaved, his rights to participate in political decision making and other social activities were fewer than those enjoyed by his owner. The product of a slave’s labour could be claimed by someone else, who also frequently had the right to control his physical reproduction. |
” |
I think a good solution would be to stick to that definition, but still mention the modern definition in the lead, or maybe in the "contemporary slavery" section. something like "Slavery is sometimes used nowadays as a term for such and such" or "the modern day notion or definition of slavery is sometimes extended to include such and such.." or something similar. Then we can move irrelevant information to the relevant articles, leaving short notes if necessary. I'd like to know what other editors think of that. -- Orionist ★ talk 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Nothing to add. Slave is different from an illegally held captive person in that if he tried to escape, he would be returned to the owner by the law enforcement agency. This is very important difference.--MathFacts (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not a good idea to use tertiary sources (like EB) as our main guidance per WP:RS. You are talking that unfree labour is not necessarily slavery. But as long as a large number of contemporary secondary sources calls something "slavery", it belongs to this article/subject. Biophys (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Americas
I suggest an excerpt from; and link to; [1] to correct a glaring omission in the Americas section, which starts rather inappropriately with African-European slave trading and frankly is a mess anyway.
In the Pre-Columbian Americas slavery was widespread, with warring tribes commonly enslaving captives and some tribes even specializing in slave raiding and trading, including trading with early European colonizers.
Best of luck to anyone accepting this request.
71.169.113.172 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Slavery by animals
Is there a reason the slavery page is restricted to slavery by/of humans? I think it would be appropriate to include slavery by animals - for instance, the Honeypot ant - for complete understanding of the subject. Hyrden (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I don't doubt that this occurs. I was asking if you were joking about including it here i.e that's ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, he is correct although as to whether on not that should be included on this page I'm not sure. Most concepts of sociology can be applied to the animal kingdom in the same way as in humans. As to whether or not that should be givin equal validty I'm not sure. On one hand it would clearly be anthropocentric and speciesist not to include them however on the other hand it would be clearly offensive to humans including my ancestors to compare there slavery to that of animals -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is slavery legal?
The article contains the statement "Although outlawed in nearly all countries, slavery still exists". The cited sources support the "still exists" statement but not the "outlawed in nearly all countries". The "nearly" means in one or more countries it's legal. If this is correct (and I suspect it is not) the article should name the countries DeCausa (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Answered my own question (with this source) and amended article accordingly. DeCausa (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete economics section
The ecomomics section should be deleted. Economics is not the main reason why there has been slavery throughout history, the negative effects of a man being a lower class worker are the reasons for slavery. A man who works a lower class job will be much less likely to get a wife or have kids so men avoid working lower class jobs by way of forcing other people to do the lower class work. So men enslaving other men is genetically beneficial since women hate lower class men. If working a lower class job gave a man an equal chance of getting a high mate woman for a mate then there would be no slavery. This human evolutionist fact can be found in the book The Moral Animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I searched on the word Irish and didn't find it. In the decade 1641 to 1652 the English killed 500,000 Irish people and sold another 300,000 into slavery. The population of Ireland dropped from 1.5 million to 600,000 during this time. In 1656 Oliver Cromwell had 2,000 Irish children sold as slaves to English settlers in Jamaica. More Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas. Since my last name comes from the son of an Irish slave father and an African slave mother, I have an interest in seeing the full truth told here. When I have time I'll research this and provide sources for information I cannot recall the root of.
66.188.106.93 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Richard Rankin (richard.rankin@ieee.org)
Slavery Conceptual Framework: Limitation, Scientism, Mainstreaming, & Rationalism
I have used Wiki for years as quick source of credible information and frequently have lamented academia and scholarly gatekeepers for their disdain of the site as source of knowledge. However, today I found myself at the page for "slavery" and was more than shocked at the manner in which the material was presented. My concerns lie with the conceptual framework or paradigm from which the article apparently evolved. I will have to review the talk page guidelines but for now want to believe my demeanor does not violate Wiki protocol. Still, because of the topic (slavery) and its relevance to many contemporary issues, I suggest a bit more openness to an other, less mainsteamed, less marginalized orientation to the material or Way of establishing fact would be helpful. As it stands, the Wiki article reminds me of the politicize tirade of Dinesh DeSouza in his rhetorical and rationalizing article that portends to discuss the facts of slavery while only being an apology for an area of life and human values that begs denial before enlightenment. I will be giving a thourough review of the article in the days to come but wanted to trust my initial observations. The seemingly indisputable concept of "Human Rights" and all other knowledge seem contested in this Information Age. Yet there must be a Way of sharing knowledge that does not ipso facto concede to left or right positions of authority. Does Wiki care to balance its presentation of this important entry? I dare say that as written the article reads as a bombardment of facts without any human emotion. I would like at least to find a "Criticism" section in the main page since many readers will not go to the discussion to get information. In the entry on "Psychohistory" I found the kind of balanced presentation I would like to see here. Even the long essay in the "Discussion" section of that article was a treasure so I hope some adjustment will occur here over time. The topic is surprizingly contemporary in the 21st century so our Way of understanding it should be cognizant of the mental frames and perspectives that promote its spread rather than argue against the peculiar institution. As-is the article seems almost pro-slavery. YearRay (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)