[pipes]

Agree. What's actually been airbrushed from history is the extent of the islamic slave trade. It was a serious threat to coastal populations of western Europe. Western governments were paying protection money to islamic governments to prevent raids. It wasnt just piracy, it was state sanctioned. So much so there was a permanent slavers base established on an island off England's coast:

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barba...

There was also a religious element that is conviently ignored, Islam did not allow enslaving of Muslims, but enslaving anyone else was fine. Hence Christian countries were targeted.

[the-printer]

I suppose that the reason that it's spoken about less is because there isn't as much as an incentive to do so outside of discussions such as this, especially when compared to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade for example.

The Western world, in particular the United States, bears the burden of their relationship with slavery being more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. This is likely a consequence of their predominance. There may just not be much for most people to talk about with regards to the effects that the slave trade in historically Islamic countries had on England because they traded slaves too. Even if the Trans-Atlantic method didn't involve piracy (it appears that "Adam Smith's invisible hand" was more effective), the modern view of slavery for most is that all forms of it are terrible. Not only that, but at a glance, the Western world has virtually shorn itself of its history as an enslaved people, save a few beautiful buildings left in their formally subjugated territories according to Stealing from the Saracens .

Anyhow, slavery as a human institution is something that just about every society has both experienced and facilitated. The institution itself is more broadly associated with the West as slavers rather than the enslaved and most people are likely unaware or are indifferent to their history as the latter due to how well-know their involvement is as the former.

On second thought, maybe the book from the article is worth a read after all. Authors usually have no control over press releases on their book. She deserves a fair shake.

[nerdponx]

I think maybe the difference is that there is direct social and cultural continuity between today's people and the people who both perpetrated and were victims of the slave trade, and those same people live in a society with very different values from those of the past wherein slavery was common. The victim lineage also still is suffering from its negative effects. Which victims of the Islamic slave trade are still negatively affected by it? Who can even tell whose ancestors were enslaved?

I think in general we should be horrified by any mass scale slave trade. We just have a personal/social connection to one in particular.

[the-printer]

> I think maybe the difference is that there is direct social and cultural continuity between today's people and the people who both perpetrated and were victims of the slave trade, and those same people live in a society with very different values from those of the past wherein slavery was common. The victim lineage also still is suffering from its negative effects.

Yeah, thank you! That's what I was trying to get across.

[pipes]

You do make a valid point and it's not something I'd thought about before. However I think if you consider when slavery was ended by year/country around the world: https://vividmaps.com/abolition-of-slavery/

You can see that given how late so many countries were to end slavery that many peoples through out the world must still be directly impacted. Not just descendents of slaves in America. In fact in some places slavery still unofficially persists for these direct descendants.

My guess is that America gets more of the negative attention due to being the leader of the free world.

[mistrial9]

> in particular the United States, bears the burden of their relationship

sure except there were groups in the new Thirteen Colonies that were adamantly, ardently, and had always been, against the slave trade. The distinction between those that engaged in slave trade and those that did not and were against it, could not have been more vivid. Yet somehow now the powerful, financially succesful and English speaking USA gets collective responsibility for all Atlantic slavery. Where does that leave the culture, practices, efforts and lineage of the people in the USA that were against it at every stage? You cannot collectively pronounce guilt like that. It was certain actors, who wielded authority and weapons quite well also, to make it plain.

[the-printer]

You made a really good point. I don't mean to delve into whether this burden is entirely fair for all, but rather I'm pointing out the fact that this burden can be imposed due to 1) The US being a global hegemon and 2) The extent to which slavery is woven into the cultural narrative of the country, to the point where on one end it's assumed become almost a poignant/macabre element of pop culture that spans well beyond its abolishment. This imposed burden is evident even in the form "antiracism" with regards to a collective pronouncement of guilt [1].

Maybe I could have done better in making my point if I had said:

    The Western world, in particular the United States, bears [a greater] burden [in respect to] their relationship with slavery [because it is] more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. 

I'm not sure if "more well-documented" is a good phrase grammatically either but that's besides the point right now. My intention was to point out that a burden can be established against the US more so than other nations when the legacy of slavery is discussed. But my perspective is biased as an American myself, so maybe this isn't the case elsewhere. Either way, the fact of the matter is that to this day slavery remains a blight on American history. The conundrum is that, as I made note of, who doesn't have a history with slavery? The two points that I brought up were an attempt to address why this blight is so much discussed in the US at the expense of other regions.

[1]: A concept that I find regressive, for the same concern that I feel you show when you say, "Where does that leave the culture, practices, efforts and lineage of the people in the USA that were against [slavery] at every stage?" In that it engenders a sort of "self-flagellatory" performance that call upon entire nations and peoples to take a part in it. My initial concern over Stealing from the Saracens was that it possessed qualities such at this. But as I engage in different threads here and think more about it, that likely isn't the case with this book, hopefully.

[mauvia]

> I'm not sure if "more well-documented" is a good phrase grammatically

maybe "better-documented"?