The reviewer says slaves were a commodity of conspicuous consumption, and that is correct insofar as they were corollary of the leisure class and not involved in any purposeful activity geared towards the market. And insofar as they were part and parcel of the leisure class their social status was higher than that of the artisan and in many instances the peasantry. Now, between 700 and 1500 the picture changes considerably and specifically after (500) under the Ottomans heavy reliance on mercenary and slave soldiery. The slave like condition worsens with the crisis of the empire. However, one would be inclined to say that slavery never became the dominant relation upon which Asiatic modes of life depended. All in all, Finley, I think, could not come to the conclusion that slavery was a dominant mode of production in the Eastern parts of the Greco-Roman empire; Much after that remained the same with the Islamic tributary system undergoing highs and lows but never any dependence on slavery. The worst of that slave like condition remains in Mauritania; this is in no way comparable to plantation slavery. Orientals in particular draw a very inaccurate picture of slavery exaggerating the role of the Harem and under-emphasizing the cruelty of life for the majority under an Asiatic despotism. It is very difficult not to read ideology in any of the social sciences. The exaggeration of the slave like condition in this part of the world and Harem practice, specifically, the practice of castration is meant to demonise or dehumanise the other from today's standpoint. One recalls that at one time the stories of one thousand and one night were banned from many western curricula because they projected elements of a highly evolved culture at the time in which the role of the slave (Jarriah) was no different than the role of the domestic in Moliere's writings. On average all that is said could be interpreted from an ideological standpoint. People in the third world cannot make their history, and lacking comparable means to develop knowledge, they are not allowed to say anything about their history. --- Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Indeed, thanks for bringing this back. That is what > I > >meant. Slaves were not involved in a commodity > >producing labour process like that of the > plantation > >style, especially one leading to or involving > surplus > >extraction. > > ??? I see the lack of plantation-style labor to > produce staples for a > consumer market (and that is important). But isn't > the whole point of > owning slaves to extract surplus for them? > > >Men slaves were soldiers. The > >fifth caliphdom in Islamic history is called the > >Mamlouk, i.e. the slave. > > > Alas! relatively few Middle Eastern and Indian Ocean > area slaves were > aristocratic warriors like the Mamelukes. Most had a > social position > that was... much more slavelike. > > >The practice of castration was prohibited and it > was practised under > >the Ottomans as a result of contact with Byzantium > > But still relatively common in the Middle East and > along the Indian > Ocean shore after it had died out in Europe, yes? > > >When will there be an end to the eurocentric views > of the world and > >that venting of guilt through recrimination or > incrimination of the > >other. > > I don't know anyone (well, maybe David Horowitz, but > I don't know him > and hope I never do) who thinks that Indian > Ocean-based African > slavery was as destructive as Atlantic Ocean-based > African slavery. > The smaller gradient in military technology in the > Indian Ocean meant > that slave raids into the interior were not as > destructive. The > slower pace of slave extraction (approximately equal > numbers in > total, but over more than twelve centuries as > opposed to three) meant > that African social structures along the coast were > less poisoned by > the institution of slavery. Once the slaves reached > their destination > areas they were, by and large, with many exceptions, > treated > significantly better--better health, more individual > freedom, longer > life expectancy--than new world slaves. Gang > plantation labor to > produce staple commodities is a uniquely cruel form > of social > organization, and the Middle East and North Africa > had very little of > that. (But in my view, at least, the decisive factor > is agricultural > technology, product, and slave price: non-capitalist > Roman staple > slave agriculture was at least as cruel as anything > in the Caribbean. > Look up "ergastula.") > > Nevertheless, the slaves of Islam are part of our > history, are they > not? And we should remember and study them, > shouldn't we? > > > Brad DeLong > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
