LOCAL AFRICAN SLAVERY

Before the slave trade commenced, Africa had local or kinship slavery. Slavery is slavery, but the local slavery was quite different from the chattel slavery practiced by the Arabs and the Europeans. Local or kinship slavery involved captives from tribal warfare, or as punishment for criminals in the local society. It could also result from payment of a debt or as a security. Most of these local slaves were for domestic or farm work. These slaves sometimes were treated just like family members and could marry into the family or clan and even become headmen!

Chattel slavery of Arabs and Europeans and Americans was a whole different ball game. The slave was the property of the owner and had not a single right. The owner could kill the slave at no penalty if he so wished.

ARAB SLAVERY

Arabs went in search of slaves after the advent of Islam. At this time, slavery was very widely practiced, and even the prophet himself is said to have had slaves. Islam prohibited the enslavement of all those who became Muslims. As a result, a critical shortage of slave labour ensured. As the Arabs spread westwards to North Africa and later through the Sahara and the Sahel to savanna Africa, they took millions of slaves over a period of 1,300 years. The Arabs also abseiled down the East African coast on the Indian ocean and went to the coast and inland to get more slaves for their countries of origin.

As the Arabs spread Islam with their camels, converts to the faith would be spared. All non-believers were fair game and could enslaved. From its advent, Islam moderated slavery as practised at the time and showed ways of manumission. In their physical form, slaves were not considered as equal to their masters in this world. However, if they converted to Islam, what awaited them was the same as what awaited their masters. This indicated that slaves were considered as having souls under Islam, which was not always the case under Christianity. Slavery in Islamic law did not have a race or colour component, but in practice, this was not always followed.

If a master so desired, slaves could be freed on his death. Contrast with some American slave states where it was illegal to free slaves under any circumstances. Like with the earlier conversions to Islam, manumission of slaves by believers of the Islamic faith led to a shortage of slaves. Consequently, this led to an increase in demand for more slaves from outside Arabia. Freed slaves who converted to Islam could rise in society but could not exert authority over Arabs. This was not possible in American style slavery.

Killing a slave unjustly had consequences. A slave committing a crime would be punished but had a lessened responsibility and a lessened punishment. If, for instance, the punishment for a crime by a free man was one hundred lashes, the slave would receive fifty lashes. In American-style slavery, the opposite was true as slaves received far greater punishments than whites for the same offence. In most states killing your slave had no consequences at all.

AMERICAN SLAVERY

In America, slaves were chattels, considered to have no soul. Whether pagan or convert to Christianity the slave remained a slave. Manumission was much rarer than in Islamic countries. In America, African slaves were considered by many as sub-human, ignoring the Christian teaching that “All have the same master in heaven, and with Him, there is no partiality.” In America, Catholic Church Orders had African slaves. The protestant faiths were divided. Those in the southern states were fervent slave-holding Christians. This led to schisms in the protestant churches along the North/South divide. The two groups were using the same Bible but praying to different gods.

Slave breeding was practiced to increase slave numbers, especially after the slave trade was banned in 1807. Whatever admixture resulted from exertions of white slavers on their female slaves were considered as slaves. Octoroons who were genetically 7/8 white, quadroons who were 3/4 white, mulatoes who were 1/2 white, griffes who were 1/4 white where all considered black and slaves unless manumitted. Once free, the freedman had only a menial role in society.

 

SOUTH AMERICAN SLAVERY

A large number of slaves went to South America. Let’s confirm ourselves to Brazil. Brazil got at least 5 million slaves from both the Atlantic and Indian Ocean coasts. The Portuguese usually baptised their slaves before extraction from Africa. Slaves arriving un-baptised would be baptised within months. In Brazil, in addition to slaves in private hands, some slaves belonged to the state and to Catholic orders.

Those who were state chattels received more horrible treatment than those in private hands. Unlike in north America, miscegenation was very widespread in Brazil as the Portuguese mated freely with slaves and Indigenous tribes. In Brazil, slaves could marry in the Catholic Church, and interracial marriages were legal. Slave women producing 10 children and more were often freed. In Brazil, slave family units for procreating more slaves were distinctly discouraged. This was because it was far cheaper to buy a new slave from Africa than to raise one.

CARIBBEAN SLAVERY

The Spanish, French, or British had extensive slave colonies in the West Indies. The Anglican church had big plantations in Barbados. These plantations practiced some of the worst mistreatment of slaves on-the planet. Though the slavers claimed to be Christians, it is very clear that their faith stood little chance when it came to making money from slavery.

Curiously, there is nowhere in the Bible where Jesus tackles slavery directly, despite the practice being widespread at the time and place where he was born and grew up. The place Jesus was born and grew up was part of the Roman Empire, and slavery was the norm. Jesus repeatedly spoke about sin and stood up to the moneylenders. Jesus also told off all those who wanted to be the first to cast stones on an alleged prostitute, Jezebel. Jesus repeatedly preached love and forgiveness. But from the records in the New Testament Bible, he apparently never addressed the question of slavery directly. This is puzzling, quite puzzling. One possible explanation is that those who wrote the New Testament deliberately left out Jesus’s view on slavery because it was not politically correct.