(Science In Poland) Not only was the trade in White slaves a major part of the economy of Medieval Europe, a slave’s value could even depend on from which son of Noah they descended, Japheth or Shem:
Slaves played an important role in the economy of medieval Europe. They were employed in large numbers, for example in church estates. Almost anyone could become a slave, both pagans and Christians, according to historian Dr. Piotr Pranke.
Shackled and doing the worst jobs? Mistreated by their masters, hurt and humiliated? As a rule, slaves in medieval Europe were not treated this way. As a workforce, they were very valuable and widely used, also in church estates, says Dr. Piotr Pranke, a historian who researches economic relations in the early medieval period.
There were two main types of slavery in medieval Europe. A slave could be a captured person – a prisoner spared during the war. “In this case, even a Christian could become a slave” – says Pranke. “The real reservoir of slaves in medieval Europe were pagan lands, for example Polabian region, Prussia or Pomerania” – the historian explains.
The second category were people enslaved by force, for example during an invasion or captured by pirates. A slave could also be a person born of a slave, convicted of a crime or unable to pay a court fine.
What was the difference between the status of a non-free person and, for example, a simple villager? According to Dr. Pranke, slaves did not have personal freedom and were a form of property. They had to perform the work ordered by the owners and could not marry without their consent. On the other hand, pagans brought deep into western Europe from the area of Polabie were forced to give up their rituals, including burning the body after death.
According to the historian, the fate of pagan slaves was worse than the fate of Christian slaves. They were the objects of long distance trade – they were sold outside Europe, to the Arabian Caliphate. “Christian slaves had to remain in the area of the Western Empire (9th-11th c.). Exporting them beyond its borders was forbidden, although the amount of information about the introduced prohibitions and legal regulations may suggest a different practice” – he adds. Accepting Christianity regulated the legal situation of the slaves.
Asked about the scale of slavery in medieval Europe, the historian said that the demand for slaves was large, also from an economic point of view….
Slaves were also owned by church institutions. They were the property of monastic centres. The law stipulated that their work for the Church should be lighter than in secular estates. In addition, some slaves received an income, for example, part of yields, and were required to pay tithes….
A large part of the slaves went to the Caliphate (Muslim state), due to the fact that – especially in the early Middle Ages – it was dynamically developing economically. The Caliphate stretched from the Iberian Peninsula through the north-western edges of Africa to Persia (today`s Iran). “The demand for slaves in the Arabic world was huge” – Pranke points out.
The Arabs imported huge numbers of Slavic slaves, who served in the palace administration and the guard protecting the Caliph, the ruler of the Muslim state. “Boys and girls were in particular demand. Most of them were children that could be trained for the Caliph`s service” – Dr. Pranke reminded.
The guard in the form of Slavic slaves appeared by the Caliphs from the beginning of the 10th century. The Arab ruler of Cordoba (today`s Iberian Peninsula), Abd ar Rahman III (921-961) initially had 3750 guards, and at the end of his reign – almost 14 thousand! “This means an average annual increase in the number of Slavic guards at a level of around 350 people, nearly one slave per day!” – the historian says.
The Arabs were so willing to import the Slavs, because they were considered the descendants of Japheth (the youngest son of Noah) and their market value was lower than, for example, the value of Persians or Byzantines (descendants of Shem – the elder of Noah`s sons). Their choice – also considering the availability of Slavs in the exchange markets – was therefore pragmatic, the historian believes….
In Baghdad during the early Middle Ages there were about 2,000 merchants claiming to be Christians, whose main source of income was the mediation of trade in valuable textiles, furs, luxury military items and slaves. Those were the highest end commodities, because people were also considered to be a commodity – the scientist says.
In medieval Europe there was no single term for a slave, because their status varied significantly. Meanwhile, an image inspired by antiquity has become established in the popular culture. It is difficult to change that now, Pranke believes.
The term “slave” comes from “Slav”, not from “negro” or “African” as our current history books would like us to believe. Historically, the number of slaves of Black African descent was small compared to the White slave trade, which can be traced from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, Persia, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome, and then Medieval Europe.
In fact, the demand for White slaves from arabs in North Africa continued up through the 1600s in Europe.
And yet Blacks have been given a virtual monopoly on the slave identity racket, which, ironically has helped “enslave” Whites in ahistorical political correctness.
And it’s worth noting that even the Arab slave traders understood that the White Europeans had their origins in the Middle East as real descendants of Noah, the Genesis 10 Nations. The Arabs understood this a thousand years ago, yet White Europeans today not only don’t understand it, they’ve probably never heard of the connection, and if they ever did hear it, they’d probably scoff at such an idea.
After all, we are all told that the Jews and Arabs are “semites”, but here we have proof that Arabs themselves knew for a fact that White Europeans were true descendants of Shem.
Ironically, it was the Jews and Arabs who were the primary dealers in the White Shemite slave trade.
Pleasantly surprised to see such an understanding of the Genesis 10 nations from a source that isn’t religious per se.
Race and history are the cornerstone of understanding for the Bible and Christianity.
The Bible is an accurate historical text, and to treat it arbitrarily as merely a “religious” text does it–and our culture–a disservice. And it’s treated this way on purpose–people are never to know just how historically accurate the Bible actually is.
Islam was the big slaver of Africans (Hamites) and Europeans (Shemites) – both. The continent of Africa for millennia was geared to tribal wars, raiding and slaving. Slaves were virtually the only African export to the Classical and Islamic worlds. Other nations got wealth out of Africa in terms of minerals, animals, agriculture, sea routes and timbers. The only wealth Africa created there was slavery. What wealth their kings, chiefs had was acquired by tribal wars and slaving. Most of those slaves went to the Caliphates. The Umayyad conquered the Iberian Peninsula and the Visgoths in 711-788 AD. They brought in the Nubians and the Jews. They ran the big slave markets in Europeans to their N African coast . Particularly in demand were the young, blond Visigothic women. Big traffic in them (as today). The annual tribute of the Visigoths to the Caliphate was 100 Visigothic virgin women. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html
Spain – this would be Catholic Spain of the Iberian peninsula – fought a war of Reconquista with the Franks (again Catholics of the West) against the Caliphates lasting a thousand years. Until their conversion to Christianity, the pagan Vikings greatly assisted the great slave markets of the East with raiding and slaving. Iberian comes from the Hebrew word Ibiru meaning Hebrew. The Visigoths were a Shemitic , Hebrew people of the Patriarch Eber who migrated through the Straits of Gibraltar on the Ships of Tarshish (Phoenicia).
White folk are still slaves today…in our own countries.
The Hebrews of the Exodus were indeed slaves, but not the ball-and-chain-and-whips kind as depicted in modern movies. They were economic slaves. They were still foreigners in a strange land that they could not claim as their own, lest they spit in the face of their hospitable host and try to conquer it. This story alone should prove Hebrews are not jews at all. The jews would have infiltrated the Egyptian government and subjected the Egyptians to the same fate as all of today’s white countries:
Being forced to work more for less, all the while bearing an ever increasing tax burden. Yes, they were basically conscripted to perform the intensive labor necessary for BUILDING structures…but could you imagine over a million jews trying to “construct” anything with their own hands? According to Scripture, these Hebrews built 2 entire cities for these Egyptians! That could ONLY be performed by the BUILDER RACE.
The Egyptians took full advantage of the capabilities of their fellow whites, instead of reducing them to mere cattle as a means to produce money, and were able to do so because they were still only SOJOURNERS in the land of Egypt. They had no say in the politics of Egypt, and the advocate they had in Joseph was LONG gone. And if there was such a discrepancy in the people classes (according to modern propaganda), how were the Hebrews able to convince their Egyptian neighbors to lend them enough gold and silver to the point of spoiling themselves?
There is really not much to the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt that jives with the modern concept of slavery. While slavery may be an economic necessity for both the slaver and the enslaved under ‘normal’ circumstances, forced enslavement for the purpose of subduing and ruling over others is the ABUSE and MISUSE of this completely misunderstood institution. Slavery, as per the Exodus account, is painted in a negative light only because it was unjustly forced upon an entire nation of white people who were not given a choice, basically upon the premise of political paranoia.
I would much rather embrace slavery as a viable institution as part a vibrant “free market” economy as per Scripture, rather than have our entire world’s economy based completely on true slave labor thinly veiled as EMPLOYMENT.
To make it perfectly clear, my opinion on this matter is predicated solely on slavery within a homogenous white society, as enumerated in the Scriptures. Non-white slavery is the model by which modern jewish propaganda attempts (and fairly succeeds) to shame whites and incite blacks.
The modern concept of “slavery” as an evil, inhuman institution is only for the purposes of inciting the negroes and instilling white guilt. Just like “racism”, slavery is NOT condemned in the Scriptures. Jesus never spoke against the ‘evils’ of either one. Slavery is a very simple economic concept.
How many people enter the military because they don’t have much of an option to be a productive, working citizen? Or because they have no place to call their own? Or because they owe a debt to society? You don’t consider conscription to the military a form of slavery? Or you don’t consider being tethered to a droning 40 hour per week job to make payments on a car that’s not yours, on a house that is not yours, on insurance that doesn’t cover anything, and to pay taxes on all these things that you THINK you own until you don’t pay the taxes…is NOT slavery?
I would imagine that ‘slaves’ SHOULD be treated extremely well! If you pay ‘good’ money for them, wouldn’t you want to get the best performance for your money? The ‘only’ difference between spending 10k on a car and 10k on a slave is literally the human factor. You’re not going to spend 10k on a car and not consistently maintain it in order to get the maximum use out of it. Same concept is easily applied to slaves. Funny thing is, that’s the same fundamental concept behind the Employer/employee relationship of our current modern economic system…
Excellent point!
Taken in consideration if “Slaves” were your guards and army . They must have been extremely well treated!