[Hong Wu]

Interesting historical anecdote from the Ottoman Empire regarding their slave or caste soldiers, the Janissaries. A Muslim is not allowed to enslave another Muslim but he is allowed to enslave a non-Muslim. This is one reason the Ottoman Empire kept non-Muslim minority groups around; when they needed slaves, they could just go to the subjugated populations (which in this setting, were mostly Christian) and take slaves from them.

One of the ironic things about the Janissaries and the Ottoman's system of quasi-slavery, is that as the centuries passed the Janissaries (who were the world's most disciplined and feared fighting force for centuries) amassed more and more power unto themselves, until eventually the Muslim empire was effectively being run by its quasi-Christian, quasi-Muslim, quasi-slave military forces. It reached a point where Christian parents would beg their Muslim oppressors to "enslave" their children because a life as a Janissary often meant a life of privilege.

After the Ottoman Empire fell and became the Turkish Republic, things were supposed to get better for everyone, both Muslim and Christian. What actually happened was that the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, who were mostly Armenians, had been robbed of a vital purpose and so they went from being a reviled but necessary minority to being just a reviled minority. Most of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were exterminated in the Armenian genocide by the supposedly new and improved democracy, which had promised to fix all of the problems attributed to the previous Empire.

If this sounds like a case of foreign stupidity, consider how similar it is to the treatment of the Jews in western Europe. For centuries, the Catholic church would not allow Christians to be bankers because bankers are bad people, but Jews were not Christian and the countries needed bankers, so the Jews were able to play the vital role of being bankers. As time passed, many of the Jews amassed a lot of wealth and a lot of power, allegedly running many government institutions and depending on who you believe, entire countries. One of the great concessions of the Catholic church was to allow Christians to become bankers, this was supposed to be better for both Christians and Jews. We might argue that ending the unique nature of the Jewish banker transformed European Jews from being a reviled but necessary minority into being just a minority, ultimately leading to things like the genocide of Jews within Germany (and the casual abuse of Jews throughout most of the western/Christian world outside of Germany).

The message I would like this story to convey is that sometimes you can stop people, or someone, from doing one stupid thing but there is no guarantee that they will start behaving in a "smart" way because you did this. They might just start doing different and new stupid things and if you're unlucky, the new stupid thing might be worse than the previous one.

[Dead Presidents]

Interesting historical anecdote from the Ottoman Empire regarding their slave or caste soldiers, the Janissaries. A Muslim is not allowed to enslave another Muslim but he is allowed to enslave a non-Muslim.

Which ironically Islam has a higher moral standpoint against slavery over Christianity on that note.

This is one reason the Ottoman Empire kept non-Muslim minority groups around; when they needed slaves, they could just go to the subjugated populations (which in this setting, were mostly Christian) and take slaves from them.

One: no one stopped them from becoming Muslims and Two: They would have been slaves regardless. Muslims enslaved Muslims as White Christians gladly sold their White Pagan/Christian brethren to Muslims.

One of the ironic things about the Janissaries and the Ottoman's system of quasi-slavery, is that as the centuries passed the Janissaries (who were the world's most disciplined and feared fighting force for centuries) amassed more and more power unto themselves, until eventually the Muslim empire was effectively being run by its quasi-Christian, quasi-Muslim, quasi-slave military forces.

Which proves the superiority of Islam Equality over White Christian hegemony. Under Islam, a Black Slave can be Emperor, under Whites he would have been a sex toy.

It reached a point where Christian parents would beg their Muslim oppressors to "enslave" their children because a life as a Janissary often meant a life of privilege.

Proving again the superiority of Islamic Slavery over White Slavery.

After the Ottoman Empire fell and became the Turkish Republic, things were supposed to get better for everyone, both Muslim and Christian. What actually happened was that the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, who were mostly Armenians, had been robbed of a vital purpose and so they went from being a reviled but necessary minority to being just a reviled minority.

Which is why Whites ruin everything they interfere in, they partition the Empire, they cause a genocide. Whites cause the terrorists attacks in their lands, they have no one to blame but themselves.

If this sounds like a case of foreign stupidity, consider how similar it is to the treatment of the Jews in western Europe. For centuries, the Catholic church would not allow Christians to be bankers because bankers are bad people, but Jews were not Christian and the countries needed bankers, so the Jews were able to play the vital role of being bankers. As time passed, many of the Jews amassed a lot of wealth and a lot of power, allegedly running many government institutions and depending on who you believe, entire countries.

Whites again creates their own enemy. Yet they don't blame themselves.

The message I would like this story to convey is that sometimes you can stop people, or someone, from doing one stupid thing but there is no guarantee that they will start behaving in a "smart" way because you did this. They might just start doing different and new stupid things and if you're unlucky, the new stupid thing might be worse than the previous one.

The smartest thing you ever said in your entire post history and that ain't saying much.

[Hong Wu]

Do you really have to be so focused on white people? I wasn't trying to make this be about white people but you've turned it into a white person thing.

The Ottoman Empire was never effectively penetrated by modern western powers to my knowledge, it just caved on its own because they realized the west had surpassed them in power and that made them question everything they had been doing since in previous times they had been regarded as stronger than the west. Which is all rather curious since the idea that they were stronger than the west was pretty much mutually based upon their conquest of Constantinople and a much-feared Ottoman invasion of western Europe arguably never happened, so we never actually got to see who was stronger.

This is one of the reasons Turkey was so easily admitted into the EU (sort of), there was a lot of saber rattling but not a lot of actual fighting, historically and relatively speaking.

[SolarCross]

Which ironically Islam has a higher moral standpoint against slavery over Christianity on that note.

Actually no, the Christians did the same thing in Europe and morality had nothing to do with it, as both muslims and christians banned the enslavement of their repective faiths in order to incentivise conversion to it. In both cases it worked well enough to incidently lead to a shortage of slaves. The Christians solved this by creating the institution of serfdom, the muslims solved this by raiding Africa and Europe for more slaves.

I suppose in a way the communists have done this too as if you reject the tenets of communism you go to the gulag for enslavement but are potentially safe from that enslavement if you convert to communism.

You are probably thinking of the "christians" of the americas who did not exempt negroes from slavery just because they were Christians or converted to Christianity unlike in Europe. It should be noted however that the abolition movement was heavily driven by more sincere Christians than the more commerically minded plantation owners of the americas.

[Dead Presidents]

Actually no, the Christians did the same thing in Europe and morality had nothing to do with it, as both muslims and christians banned the enslavement of their repective faiths in order to incentivise conversion to it.

No, Muslims had Muslim slaves, moreso than Christian slaves at the time. But the incentive was there regardless. What I meant was, Christianity said nothing against slavery, while Islam said it was illegal to enslave another Muslim. So that is one point above Christianity.

In both cases it worked well enough to incidently lead to a shortage of slaves.

So again money.

The Christians solved this by creating the institution of serfdom, the muslims solved this by raiding Africa and Europe for more slaves.

So Muslims were equal opportunists, and Christians had a slavery by another name.

I suppose in a way the communists have done this too as if you reject the tenets of communism you go to the gulag for enslavement but are potentially safe from that enslavement if you convert to communism.

I suppose in a way Americans have done this too as if you reject the tenets of American interests, you be in jail for being unamerican. But potentially safe from that jail if you be a yankee doodle dandy, I can speak bullshit as well.

You are probably thinking of the "christians" of the americas who did not exempt negroes from slavery just because they were Christians or converted to Christianity unlike in Europe.

I like you said negro, instead of Blacks.

It should be noted however that the abolition movement was heavily driven by more sincere Christians than the more commerically minded plantation owners of the americas.

Not necessarily, some just hated Blacks more than the slave owners and wanted them gone from America(Oregon example) and then there were those who were "sincere" Christians who supported Slavery based on "Curse of Ham" or some shit. In any case, those Abolitionists died out with the reconstruction era and in Europe with the dawn of colonialism.

[SolarCross]

No, Muslims had Muslim slaves, moreso than Christian slaves at the time. But the incentive was there regardless. What I meant was, Christianity said nothing against slavery, while Islam said it was illegal to enslave another Muslim. So that is one point above Christianity.

wiki - random snippets from an abolition of slavery timeline

AD 873 - Pope John VIII commands under penalty of sin that all Christians who hold other Christians as slaves must set them free.

AD 1080 - William the Conqueror prohibits the sale of any person to "heathens" (non-Christians) as slaves.

AD 1100 - Slave trade and serfdom are condemned by the Church at the Council of London.

AD 1220 - The Sachsenspiegel, the most influential German code of law from the Middle Ages, condemns slavery as a violation of man's likeness to God.

AD 1315 - Louis X publishes a decree abolishing slavery and proclaiming that "France signifies freedom", that any slave setting foot on French ground should be freed. However some limited cases of slavery continued until the 17th century in some of France's Mediterranean harbours in Provence, as well as until the 18th century in some of France's overseas territories. Most aspects of serfdom are also eliminated de facto between 1315 and 1318.

I am not an expert on christian history maybe Jesus himself did not personally censure slavery but Popes and other leading Christians have done so.

I am a pagan myself so I don't necessarily view slavery as an absolute evil but I don't think it is accurate to paint Muslims as particularly virtuous compared with Christians on this issue.

o Muslims were equal opportunists, and Christians had a slavery by another name.

That's a funny way of looking at it. Serfdom was a short lived half way house, it was perhaps less an innovation by Christians and more a work around by nominal Christians who wanted the benefits of (semi-)slavery without offending the Church. The Church proper came out against that too though.

I suppose in a way Americans have done this too as if you reject the tenets of American interests, you be in jail for being unamerican. But potentially safe from that jail if you be a yankee doodle dandy, I can speak bullshit as well.

Do you not recognise the gulag system as a system of slavery? Or do you believe that conversion to communist beliefs offered no protection from it?

I like you said negro, instead of Blacks.

Sorry is that not an acceptable term? I am not american, I don't necessarily know the right ettiquette. My apologies if I used the wrong term.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

Oooo, so you believe in a pagan philosophy? Which one?

btw, the Islamic empire didn't spread to North Africa for slaves, it was simply for expansion's sake and for resources. Slaves were just part of those resources.

Also the creation of serfdom was not due to the church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom

You can see the history of serfdom here.

Also this entire discussion between you and @Dead Presidents is disgusting. No sources or evidence at all, only assumptions that are taken as fact.

[SolarCross]

@Oxymandias
In terms of cosmology I'm 100% modern science.
For culture, festivals, values, story telling and the like I enjoy both Nordic and Greek paganism the most (partly due to ethnic allegience and partly due to familiarity) but will give fair hearing to any non-abrahamic mythology.

Serfdom wasn't created by the church, but was created by nominal christians in the context where slavery was banned by the church, as I said.

I linked to a wiki article on the abolition of slavery timeline, that's a source.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

My favorite mythologies are Turkish, Persian, and Japanese. I also have a fascination with Cannite gods and Pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism.

Actually it was naturally created after the Carolingian Empire collapsed which lead to a long period without a central government in Europe. During this period feudal lords established serfdom as a source for agricultural labor.

Here is a link to the history of Serfdom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom

[Verv]

Of course, people will come here to criticize your history of the Ottomans because a brief summary of the circumstance is never enough. But I can swear to it that elements of this are true and particularly were relevant among the Mamluks in Egypt as well. It is a rather potent theme in Mediterranean politics. We could even say that the privileged, intelligent & influential slave trope goes back to Roman times.

We could say that it almost sociologically runs its course quite naturally that the foreigner among you is often elevated to a place of importance, even in the strangest of circumstances like that of Gonzalo Guerrero.

But your greater point here about people not behaving smartly even when you proverbially set them up for it is extremely true.

We thought that abortion would never be used as a means of birth control... but it was.

We thought that growing the Fed just a little bit to do a few good things wouldn't result in it spiraling out of control but... look around.

Most things carry huge ramifications that are seldom considered.