Talk:White slavery

Name change proposal
I suggest we change the name of this page to European Slavery rather than 'white slavery' Roncon1 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it back, I found a source where White Slavery was used in 1847 to describe the chattel slavery of European Christians among the Barbary States. Roncon1 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Irish slaves
There is one category of White slaves missing here: the Irish who were enslaved during the Oliver Cromwell era. Is there a relevant article that can be linked to for them? Epa101 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page actually makes a rather poor disambiguation target. The term "white slavery" has one common meaning (the early 20th century moral panic) and numerous others where it's used as a very rare synonym.  I tried rewriting the page in line with MOS:DAB and had such trouble that I just turned it into a main stub.  The two main uses seem to be the moral panic and the Arab slave trade, so I've used this page and a for to try to sort that out.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should not simply list every example of white people being slaves (and, anyway, as far as I know the Irish were never enslaved by Cromwell), but I think the current article is misleading. The concept of white slavery as not purely a moral panic about "purported kidnapping and sexual slavery of American women" or an offshhot of the Yellow Peril. It existed earlier in the UK, where the term was used to refer to sexual exploitation and trafficking in the 1880s. Prior to that the term was associated with white concubines (see Circassian beauties) in Middle Eastern harems. There is a clear progress from concubines/sex-slaves > sexual trafficking > prostitution. And academics who oppose modern popular fantasies about innocent girls abducted and forced into prostitution often use the term "white slavery" to refer to the mythic aspect of these beliefs in modern politics . I think the article should cover this full set of interrelated meanings. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole terminology is weird and used very loosely; for me and right now the point is this page is about white slavery as a moral panic, since this use seems to be the most common. If you can find sources that elaborate on a different meaning (I looked for a bit and didn't come up with much) then it would be good to either create the page or create a White slavery (disambiguation) page.  I have no real objection to either better disambiguation or renaming, it's just that this was the best I could do with the sources I could find after a bit of digging.  The page can't be about white people who we think were enslaved or something similar - that's original research.  There has to be reliable sources discussing a particular idea known as "white slavery".
 * The white concubines idea seems to be covered in the Arab slave trade article. The original first bullet of the page before I edited it seemed to refer to prostitution as "white slavery", but not referring to a specific people.  White was seen as the opposite as, or to be distinguished from, black slavery (i.e. African people being imported to the Americas to be used as hereditary slaves).  The article can only cover the full set of meanings if there is evidence that most scholars agree with your progression.  I certainly see it as something that makes sense, but again that's original research.  If the term genuinely did evolve in this way, and we can reference it, then the article certainly should be rewritten to clarify.  If you can put up some more sources that demonstrate your point, we can start integrating and rewriting.  This whole thing got started because I was having such trouble figuring out what kind of white slavery actually existed to disambiguate!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to know where I got the idea that Cromwell had enslaved some of the Irish, it was in Clive Foss's The Tyrants book, Quercus, London, 2006, page 89: "Thousands of Irish were sent as slaves to the West Indies, and Catholic landlords were expelled in favour of Protestants." I know that The Tyrants is a populist book, but Clive Foss is a professional historian. Epa101 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Irish slaves in the U.S. ( Most Slaves In America Were White – Political Vel Craft)? Or is this site bogus? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:45F6:4D03:37DF:C696 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary style
I'm commenting here in reply to an invitation from WLU posted on my talk page.

I agree that this topic is too large for a disambiguation page, but on the other hand, the term has been used for so many different ideas that some sort of disambiguation is needed. So I recommend using WP:Summary style, with an overview, evolution of the use of the term, and a short section for each use with links to the main articles - most uses already have Wikipedia articles, though this process might turn up some that don't. For those, the summary section could suffice for now and later new articles can be made if expansion is warranted. The section would probably best be in chronological sequence, though other schemes could work also.

Here's an initial suggestion for the layout - these are just some of the uses I've found, there are more:


 * lead - describe range of uses and a brief history of the term's evolution, including the moral panic; mention that present day use of the term is deprecated other than for historical contexts and mention some of the more modern terms (ie, human trafficking)
 * sections:
 * evolution of the term p134 p1847 p539 & 490 various pages various pages p116
 * synonym for forced prostitution p541
 * 1600s-1800s eastern europe and mideast
 * 1800s-early 1900s - white slavery - real & imagined; moral panic (& even some international treaties related to this)
 * late 1900s in the Balkans
 * late 1900s to the present middle east
 * forced prostitution p541
 * Child camel jockey
 * the US State Dept 2003 Country Assessments for Armenia notes that according to the 2002 Trafficking in Persons Report, "white slavery operations" exist between Armenia and Persian Gulf states
 * there are news reports that describe women trapped in persian gulf states by having their passports revoked; these reports can be researched for reliability and to see if the term is used in that way
 * late 1900s to present day - in connection with narcotics trafficking (I've heard of this but don't currently have sources)
 * present day worldwide (there are various Wikipedia articles that can apply, the question is to find sources that make the connection with the term)
 * human trafficking in general (the USA state dept report mentioned above verifies this use of the term in present day)
 * sexual slavery, ie forced prostitution
 * child sex tourism
 * etc...

Those are some initial ideas, I'll have to leave the development of the article to others for now. Hope it's helpful. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So essentially focussing on the term rather than any single definition or use of the term. Interesting, and quite fruitful in my regard.  I don't know if I'll have time to address this in the near future, but I think it's a good way of addressing the issues with the page.  Great idea!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Emma Goldman speech
Could you add this good speech by Emma Goldman on the cause? http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/traffic.html Stars4change (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to express my objection
In regards to "...full-scale, hereditary system of slavery that had been imposed on black people in the Americas, Europe and Africa." Slavery had long been practiced in Europe and the MidleEast before the exploration of the African continent and the discovery of the new world and the European exploitation of African people. Slavery, much it seems to the surprise of many in the US, is not restricted or dependent on racial traits. If the intention is to be selective refer to it as African Slave Trade and start by pointing out that even before Europeans made a stride in Africa, slavery was already prevalent there, human labor was always a resource and a trade commodity. --79.168.6.93 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence is confused, since there was no "hereditary" slavery based on race in Europe or Africa, though European countries certainly ran such systems in their colonies. There was link between race and slavery in North Africa, but it was not systematic. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The first slaves in the Americas were Indians owned by fellow Indians. The second group was Europeans sent to the Americas as slaves.  Africans (captured largely by their own race, or by Arabs), only followed thirdly. Slavery, per se, has nothing to do with race.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitions
The traditional use of "White slavery" was a reference to sexual slavery. To suggest that this was intended to "distinguish it from the system of slavery that had been imposed on black people in the Americas" is artificial and American-centric. The terms simply refers to the taking or (White) European women by barbery and other slavers, for sexual and other purposes.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Racial/sexual paranoia - demonstration of naivety and/or idiocy
Is the term not most commonly used to refer to the racist mythology of the nineteenth century? That is, to instil irrational fear and prejudice in the mind's of white women? To damn non-white men as inherently dangerous? This seems to be the context it is most commonly used in. As with the myth of the "drug pusher" the phrase is usually placed in the mouths of characters to demonstrate their credultiy, or naivety. That is, it is such an inherently ridiculous notion that a person's alluding to it is intended to demonstrate their sheer gullibility, and lack of worldliness, if not their idiocy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.101.207 (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure where this is going. This is a dab page for a dictionary term. It is not "pov pushing" any term. Student7 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You appear to be referring to the historical use of the term "white slavery" in the 19th century. See Sexual_slavery. This was essentially a euphemism. At the time the only "whites" who were commonly actual slaves were women who were concubines in Islamic countries (see Circassian beauties). It was used as a euphemism for various forms of prostitution, without the implication that non-white men were necessarily involved in any way. But of course it did originate with the idea that white women were literally enslaved to 'darker' male harem-owners in Islamic countries at the time, so it had an element of racial ideology as part of the meaning, yes. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Indentured servants
A respected editor has added indentured servants to the list of white "slaves." We had discussed this in another venue and decided that people who were indentured were not really slaves in the usual sense. They still had rights. They had signed a very long-term contract, usually for portage. They were not known to be (for example) sexually "used." They were beaten, but then, even older servants subject to no indenture were beaten in those days. There was a legal end to indenture; none to genuine slavery. The indenture did not apply to children born of any marriage (actually, marriage was usually not permitted under the terms of indenture, but there were probably exceptions); children of slaves were automatically slaves. So there are few, if any, similarities to slavery, and rather more similar to a modern "contract for services!" I would like to see the term rm and would have removed it myself, except out of respect for the editor who added it. Student7 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As an objection to the last remark. Many slaves had rights in various cultures in the world throughout history. The idea of forced or unfree labor or being exploited is considered human trafficking and is associated with slavery. Slaves in the Ottoman Empire had limited rights, but they were still owned, even though they were not considered "property". If an indentured servant or bonded labour was contracted to work 10 years, but wanted to run away after 5, the servant could be tracked down and brought back to the property and be forced to serve the rest of his agreed terms. Many servants went into contracts not really knowing what they were getting into and for that were exploited. Roncon1 (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

the Vikings had slaves too
not Only "non European" Muslims.

Mistaken identity for what are the demand and supply instances.
Chad hills has it that it requires a reduction of prostitution.

They make a mirroring mistake, the true supply, is an extreme supply in penisses/cocks, and not the supply in prostitutes, which is minimal.

That same instance was used in reverse to excuse prostitution, the allegation that it supplied a required need. The need isn't there, any man being able to masterbate himself to completion, therefore that particular is not a need.

The only reality there, is a form of autism where the individual has lost contact with realities which in contemporary european societies are catered to through the use of pet/animal contact parks (with their particular forms of managing the influx of people).

There are several instances of this supply being confused, the excedent supply for what is politics being in 'sado-masochistic' 'competitve' encounters between politicians themselves, especially when that comes to subsidiation and where goes what, and whom controls this. Of that, there is an apparent endless supply.

The Chad Hills program is not much more then a social program to move one form of subsidiation from one group to another and does not solve a thing. 200.44.81.182 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is the example picture of a Circassian? Aren't Circassian's "Asian"? And aren't "Asian" people viewed as "non white"?
Why does the image of "white slavery" feature a man of Circassian background? They're a Turkic people who are from parts of Asia. Their homeland is also not in "Europe". And people always say that "Asians" aren't "white" people. I thought "white" was usually synonymous with people of "European" background. Couldn't we use an image of someone of "European" background being a slave? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:51A7:D800:E1D8:F0AC:ABE4:F57 (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They are literally an indigenous popolation of the northwest caucasus, if that's not caucasian I wonder what is. Turks are not "asian" either.62.10.161.224 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Turks aren't Asian? Don't a fair amount of Turkic people live in ASIA Minor? Furthermore, perhaps give this a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Have a read of the Caucasian page. Specfically "The Caucasian race was historically regarded as a biological taxon which, depending on which of the historical race classifications was being used, usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa." Furthermore, "In the United States, the root term Caucasian is still in use as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry." Roncon1 (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Source or destination?
The third paragraph of § Slavic Slaves begins [boldface added]:


 * Central Europe was the most favoured destination for importation of slaves alongside Central Asia and Bilad as-Sudan, though slaves from Northwestern Europe were also valued.

By the use of "though", the sentence contrasts Central Europe, Central Asia, and the Sudan desert region of Africa, on the one hand, with Northwestern Europe on the other. But in what do they contrast? The first group of three regions as the buyers of slaves versus NW Europe as their place of origin, which is not a contrast. Imagine a restaurant waiter saying "Many people come back again and again for our specialty pizzas, but you might prefer to pay with a credit card instead of cash."

I'm not confident of being able to untangle this. If anyone else has the knowledge, I hope they do it!

--Thnidu (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Treatment of white slaves
This article goes a little too far in trying to claim that indendured servants somehow were always treated better than Africans transported over during the transatlantic slave trade. Historian David Brion Davis is one(but not the only) who has written that this is false. In many instances the slave owners did not care skin color and did not care place of origin and circumstances of situation or lenth of any contract. They would conduct a beating all the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.134.98.50 (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman slavery
I think describing the slavery carried out by the Ottomans as comprehensive for all the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa is a very great injustice, as these areas were under the rule of the Ottomans, but it has nothing to do with the peoples who lived there, just as the pictures that were placed are of a person of unknown origin, so their status may also cause problems about Islamic slavery It seems that it is spreading hatred or using the word "moors" to explain that blacks enslave whites. This is not true. Barbary slavery should not be overemphasized and should be made comprehensive to all peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, or the Islamic world. Xwasx12s (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is very messy and someone needs to correct it. Barbary slavery is attributed only to the Ottomans and not to the inhabitants of North Africans people or the Middle Eastrens !! As for the Saqliba slavery, this slavery was carried out by the Arabs, not the Ottomans, or all Muslims around the world !! As for Islamic slavery on the Iberian pensula, there is no source or evidence for it. The description of the word "moor" is unknown, unless it is intended to be used for different peoples. Xwasx12s (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have my own problems with this article, but claiming there is no evidence for slavery in Al-Andalus is just patently absurd. Agricolae (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is a lot of exaggeration
Slavery on the Iberian Peninsula did not occur at all, and there is no reference or evidence for it in the enslavement of Christians. Only the slavery of the saqaliba occurred, which was practiced by the Arabs alone, not the "Moors" in both of spain,portugal and italy Moaqasaxz12 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is complete nonsense. Complete. Nonsense. Agricolae (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The article contains many errors and uncoordinated merging, as Ottoman slavery has nothing to do with the inhabitants of North Africans and the Middle Eastrens !! Also, barbary slavery is Ottoman only and not Arab at all. As for the Saqliba slavery, this slavery practiced by the Arabs, not the Ottomans, is combined between the two and this is completely wrong. Nor does a European slave have the slavery of the "Moors" in the Iberian Peninsula. There is no source for it and it must be deleted. The only slavery that occurred on the Iberian Peninsula is the Saqaliba slavery that was carried out by the Arabs alone without the Ottomans or Muslims or the Moors in need of nothing but arrangement and should help me Anyone on this Moaqasaxz12 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the picture that he placed is of a Circassian worker and not of a European slave at all !! The article is very well messy out and should be arranged better. I need some help with that Moaqasaxz12 (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Reparations
When free money based on ancient history?

Racial and Gendered Implications
This article fails to discuss the racial and gendered implications of "white slavery." For example, there are studies that claim that the crisis of white slavery was due to racial anxieties about white women being in close proximity to non-white men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjcarney (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that white men went willingly into slavery in order to stop nonwhite men from messing with white women who were in slavery? 212.247.230.161 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you need to be aware of the fact that slavery has excisted in other places than in the US, and that American experiences around slavery are not the same as the slavery experience in other parts of the world. --Aciram (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Use today
"The modern legal term applies more narrowly to sexual slavery, forced prostitution and human trafficking, with less focus on the race of victims or perpetrators." To be clear, is this saying that "white slavery" is a term still used in modern law? (and in which countries?).

Slavery in ancient Rome
I'm not really sure what slavery in ancient Rome is doing in this article. The notion of "white slavery" seems quite irrelevant to how the Romans practiced slavery. I suppose it's relevant from a demographic perspective, if there's some kind of agenda-driven "hey, Europeans have been enslaved too" purpose underlying its inclusion, but the emphasis on mining and gladiators seems quite off topic. Maybe look over the main article to see whether this section makes sense both as a snapshot of Roman slavery and as part of the historical narrative of this article? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of this page?
It seems to exist to add basis to right wing grievance claims? The whole white slave traffic section especially seems like good evidence of this. One of the images is of a Circassian, who are not European nor identify as such. Not to mention white slavery was never racialized. The page also omits the European origins of many of the Barbary pirates, and the high positions these white slaves could hold.

Again, there seems to be no Wikipedia page solely for Black slavery or Native American slavery. So what exactly is the point of this page? 98.45.183.129 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The term "White slavery" was used as a term for sex trafficking in the Western world in the period of cirka 1850-1950, and can be used to describe the campaign against the issue in that time period. That section of the article is highly relevant, and there is plenty of material to expand on that section. See the section named "White slave traffic".
 * As for the rest of the article, it can certainly discussed if it is relevant or not - though of course it can be argued that there are plenty of readers that may wonder about the subject, since many people associate the term slavery with the Atlantic slave trade, which was highly racist toward "Black" people - but it may be a historical term for enslaved Europeans, I do not know. Those sections can certainly be discussed by people with more knowledge about the subject than me.
 * But the section of the article treating the white slae traffic in the late 19th- and early 20th-century makes this article relevant and legitimate for that purpose at least, if not for any other. That part of the article should be expanded. "White slavery" was a term describing the sex trafficking at that time and was an issue of a major campaign in the Western world at the time.--Aciram (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit: You write: "The page also omits the European origins of many of the Barbary pirates, and the high positions these white slaves could hold", which sounds more like a discussion about values than anything else. Wikipedia is not a place for discussion. The article discuss the enslavement of people identified as "white" (Circassians were and are defined as Europeans, and they were referred to and identifies as "white" in that time period), and they were of course enslaved regardless of the "race" of the people who enslaved them. As for "the high positions these white slaves could hold", that sounds like you are trying to participate in the culture war discussion oj the topic of "which slavery was worse", which is so common in online social media and in practice is appologetism for one slavery or another - in this case it would be appologetism for the slavery you refer to.
 * Disregarding the obvious fact that slavery is bad regardless how "high positions these white slaves could hold" - which by the way completely ignores female slaves, who were commonly made in to concubines, which is sexual slavery classified as rape - Wikipedia is not a place for these culture war discussions. --Aciram (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Slavery did affect white-skinnned people in many places of the world but no historian — to the best of my knowledge — has ever used the term "white slavery" to describe it. The only books where I have come across the term discussed the movement in USA to end enforced prostitution. Can involved editors please quote from five peer reviewed monographs — from academic presses — to discredit my claim? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this appears to be a fringe racist argument with no subscribers in academia! So, unless one can find multiple acclaimed historians (there are no scarcity of academics working in the broader area) who are using the term, I will either rewrite the page as one covering the trafficking debates or rewrite it as one on the FRINGE concept. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing this, I feel confident adding extra warnings to the talk page. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I Agree, it seems that this page has no point and is just another Fringe because it just says that white people got enslaved which sounds ridiculous and looks like someone is trying to prove a point by creating this page,
 * Kelcoz (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I am a bit concerned that some people appear to view this topic as some sort of bluff, and that the page should be deleted.
 * Please observe, that the term "White slavery" (or "White slave traffic") is well known as a term for the sex trafficking of women and children in about the time period circa 1870-1940. The so called "White slave trade" was an issue of a major campaign by anti prostitution activists and abolitionists in the Western world in the decades around 1900.
 * Of course, most people in the English speaking world may only be aware of the campaign of the United states in this issue, and maybe Britain. However, the view that this campaign only excisted in the United states is US-Centric and Anglo-centric. This campaign was global, and also took place in France, the German speaking world and in Scandinavia. In Sweden, for example, it was referred to as Vit slavhandel (literary: "White slave trade"). National organizations was founded to adress the issue; the press engaged in it, and international organizations was founded who conducted international congresses to participate in the campaign. Please observe the section "White slave traffic" of this article for further information, International Agreement for the suppression of the White Slave Traffic and the International Bureau for the Suppression of the Trafﬁc in Women and Children.
 * The topic of the so called "White slavery"-question is therefore a highly relevant topic about a global international campaign of the time.
 * As for the rest of the article, I have no idea if the slavery described in the other sections of the article was ever referred to by this term, and if they were, that must be referenced or the sections deleted. Personally, I have no information about that, and those sections may be a part of the American culture war discussions that is going on all over the internet, for all I know about the topic (I may of course be wrong).
 * My suggestion is the following: delete all sections of the article except the section "White slave traffic", and rewrite the lead to dress the topic of section four. As far as I am aware, the section "White slave traffic" is the only section relevant for this article. It would be a great shame if the article and the "White slave traffic"-section was deleted simply because of the other sections of the article. That topic section is relevant for its own article, and I am concerned that it should remain. --Aciram (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I'm cool with this proposal. I second it. Rewrite the article around the 1870-1940 human trafficking problem as described in the "White slave traffic" section. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 15:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)