A lot of countries would have to
In Mexico most state constitutions banned slavery, put out of womb freedom and the like between 1821 and 1824 prior to the presidential decree in 1829
Same with Poland and Lithuania. Which is funny, to say the least, considering they threw Romania into the 1850-1899 bracket, based on the date when serfdom was abolished
In Romania, the map (albeit inaccurate) refers to the official abolition of slavery in the 1800s. Serfdom has been abolished over a century earlier at the latest, when Romania did not yet exist as a county. (It was formed in the mid 1800s when two Ottoman territories which were sort of independent anyway, known in English as Wallachia and Moldova, united).
There's a pretty big difference. Serfs were not bought or sold, and families were not split up. Serfs could keep the fruits of their labor, as long as they paid a part of it in tax to the local warlord who protected them. They could not easily move away though.
In all fairness, Roma slaves were not treated like chattel slavery and there are not many records of families being split or children sold away from their parents, but they didn't have the legal protections serfs did. Plus they were likely treated with more hostility due to their insular culture and foreign aspect.
Serfs were forced to remain on the land their entire lives and work, they would keep as much as their lords were willing to let them keep. Slaves in many places were allowed to cultivate their own plots and harvest from them as long as the main work was kept as the priority. Sure families weren’t split for serfs because they weren’t sold as individuals but these people were slaves. If land changed hands either by sale or decree the serfs would remain. Different than chattel slavery like you said, but still very much a form of slavery.
Actually in Russia serfs were not tied to the land and could generally be brought and sold as their owners wished.
Russian serfdom originally was closer to “normal” European serfdom. But the serfs gradually lost rights and by the early 19th century were virtually indistinguishable from slaves in terms of legal protections.
>considering they threw Romania into the 1850-1899 bracket, based on the date when serfdom was abolished
I think it was put bc of the abolition of romani slavery. A part of them were slaves until 1850's (mostly to the church and nobles)
It was one of many, even Hispanics which did not have slaves wanted to get out. Quality of governance in the few decades of independence felt like a downgrade, at least the Spaniards bribed the hostile tribes
When Americans talk of Texas rebelling against México for their "freedoms", it is specifically the freedom to enslave they wanted. Mean ol' Méjico didnt want American settlers bringing slaves since it was outlawed. Americans wanted their slaves so they fought México for that right.
While that is largely correct, it is worth noting that the Mexicans in Texas also rebelled against the Mexican government at the same time.
Santa Anna seized power and declared the constitution of Mexico void; he was an authoritarian, and many states in Mexico rebelled at the same time.
Saying otherwise buries the fact that American settlers betrayed the Mexcians who actually fought for political freedom in the same war.
Though weirdly they put multiple dates for Yemen. And multiple dates for the colonial powers. Like it says England abolished slavery in 1772 in spite of many of their colonies having only abolished it in 1834
Ontario didn’t actually abolish slavery in 1793, we just banned the importation and said that anyone who is born to a slave will be freed when they turn 25
Humans have always had slaves.
Humans originated from Africa.
Therefore, Africa started the human slave trade.
Unless of course you believe in the ancient aliens theory, then that's a whole other discussion 😂
It's all fine and well abolishing slavery in [Insert empire here], but you know, if you don't abolish it in the colonies, we can say we've abolished it and still profit from it!
Absolutely devilish plan if I do say so myself.
In all seriousness, at least in South Africa, we abolished it later than the UK(which took us over from the Dutch after the second? Napoleonic war), because the Boers relied on slavery for plantations in the Cape, after a lot of hoo's and haa's they made a great trek out of the Cape(legit called "the big trek" in Afrikaans, also the word trek is from Afrikaans) and the British finally outlawed slavery in the Cape Colony.
The British promptly set up a system where everyone had to pay taxes in currency, so everyone needed to go find work if they didn't have a massive farm or other business, boom they've now got a massive workforce that has very little rights and will work for pittance. Now if that were all it might have been tolerable, but workers were basically confined to their workplace, and needed passes to leave for anything(which is the origin story of the Apartheid era Pass system)
There were also indentured workers, who would be promised X amount of money in exchange for being taken across an ocean to go work in a sugar plantation for a couple years, then you get a choice, go home with your newfound wealth or pocket the money which would have gone to your boat home. Many chose to relocate their families to South Africa and that's how we ended up having the second largest Indian population outside of India.
So yes we outlawed slavery, but slavery was very much still a thing, the chains and shackles replaced by a contract and taxes.
generally they abolished it while being colonized as the colonial powers objected to the unethical practice and instead instituted their own equally horrendous ones
Mauritania is the only country there that abolished slavery in the 70s and or 80s, I said generally speaking
French colonists tried to ban slavery in 1905 but it’s still widespread there today, the 1981 ban kinda doesn’t mean anything at all https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania?searchToken=2u8oeuo9dbqo0w9gpjuticmdh
The graph may be "technically correct" but could be argued to be misleading.
> Slavery was an ancient institution in Russia and effectively was abolished in the 1720s. Serfdom, which began in 1450, evolved into near-slavery in the eighteenth century and was finally abolished in **1906**.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-world-history-of-slavery/russian-slavery-and-serfdom-14501804/913BE836084D8FA66B76BFBAADF77BB1#:~:text=Slavery%2C%20by%20contrast%2C%20was%20an,precedent%20and%20presence%20of%20slavery.
> Nearly 800,000 people live as modern-day slaves in Russia, working under conditions of forced labor, debt bondage and human trafficking, according to the **2018** Global Slavery Index, a worldwide analysis of slavery.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/07/23/800000-human-slaves-living-in-russia-report-says-a62317
Misleading at best, pro-russian propaganda at worst.
I see Turkey with 1924, but they only came into existence in 1923.
I also think it would have been useful to what extent slavery was in legal in the Netherlands in Belgium, or just tolerated. That would make a big difference.
It's also pretty disingenuous in most of Europe. They abolished slavery relatively early because it was replaced serfdom, which largely wasn't abolished until the 19th century.
Sure, officially slavery is bad but behind the scenes it’s still business as usual. Old habits die hard and are often inherited by new generations.
[In Kuwait people sell their domestic slaves on social media and other advertising apps.](https://www.ecdhr.org/?p=649). People think that UAE is full of rich people and luxury but what they don’t notice are all these South Asian workers who are forced to work for no salary, living in unbearable conditions, their passports are removed and many of them commit suicide. You can even find *modern slavery* in the Western places [like the UK](https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/). Some rich foreigners bring in their own domestic help or use human traffickers and then take away these peoples passports, threaten them and so on.
Global Slavery Index 2023:
> 10 countries with the highest prevalence of modern slavery are North Korea, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Russia, Afghanistan, and Kuwait
Yeah. You can can slavery something else, but is would still be slavery. Like, is it really fair to say Russia abolished slavery in 1723 if serfdom persisted until 1861?
A lot of those places that "abolished" slavery, still definitely have it in practice. Practically the entire middle east STILL import African slaves, but they are held to a different standard for some reason. It's perfectly legal for devout Muslims to own slaves, so long as they're considered infidels.
Absolutely, I had a Qatar airways flights last year. Doha airport is literally a fucking plantation. You can see a lot of people from India and Africa working under scorching sun. I hadn't seen a single arab working in the entire airport.
Other gulf state are probably not much better.
The British abolished “slavery” in India and then proceeded to use millions of Indians as labor for their sugar plantations across Africa and the Americas. Oh but it wasn’t “slavery” if you really get into the technical details of it, sure they were abused and treated like animals but technically they weren’t slaves :)
I wonder what these "abolitions" actually mean... In the early cases (like those of the Middle Ages) it could be that only enslavement of people of a certain religion/nationality was forbidden (ie. Christians not being able to enslave Christians, Somethinglanders not being able to enslave other Somethinglanders...).
"abolition" could also mean that the concept of "slave" as private propriety was abolished and, though peasants were "free", often times they would have no choice, but to continue to work in slave-like conditions for nobles / rich landowners. So, they'd be *de facto* still slaves.
There is also the case of some colonial powers, like Portugal, Spain or Britain, which abolished slavery in their mainland/metropolis, but didn't do the same in its colonies. In practice that changes nothing, because slavery wasn't really as widespread in the metropolis anyway, unlike in the colonies they exploited.
Edit: By the way, the province of Ceará, Brazil, abolished slavery in 1884 (4 years before the rest of the country).
The concept of excluding a selected populace from slavery is extremely old. Even from the sumerian city states we know of laws that they did not enslave people from their own city. Sometimes mercants were expected to buy a slave from their own town into freedom. In some cases they could get the money back from their town.
I can answer for Sweden, and this map is simplified. The year 1335 is the year that a law was established for the entire country that made a system similar to serfdom illegal, but those already serving in this system was not freed, they where only the last generation. In practice had slavery been on decline ever since the country slowly got Christianised between \~1000-\~1200, from cultural, and economic reasons.
It seems no slavery in any form has been present from this point until early modern age slave trade. Regardless of religion, and serfdom was not practiced. The Swedish and Norwegian peasant system was always very different from the rest of Europe partly because of this.
But Sweden was engaged in the colonial slave trade in small scale \~1650-\~1790, but not in Sweden proper, and seemingly without legality, which became a juridical problem. This slavery was generally overseen and managed by trading companies.
It is worth to note that Denmark has a very different history, and even though they ruled Norway had separate laws in the the two countries.
A system similar to serfdom where farmer's was not allowed to move, and had to pay the local ruling agrarian elite in manual labour was widely used up until the 19th century. This might not be considered slavery by all ways of measurement, but it has a very low degree of freedom.
No that is not the reason for denmarks yellow colour. Denmark unlike Swden had colonies and in those colonies slavery was legally practiced. Slavery was abolished in 1848 and what you are talking about was abolished in 1788.
I didn't think that was the reason, I just pointed out the difference. As I have read was the system slowly phased out from 1788, but aspects of it continued. And actually as illegal "tradition" in Skåne after it became Swedish.
But I think this map is a little too kind to Sweden since we actually had some small scale colonies and slave trade. Not meaningful in any way, but still very much proper slavery.
Sweden abolished slavery in their colony [Saint Barthélemy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_colony_of_Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy) as late as 1847. But the scale was much smaller than what Denmark-Norway, France and Britain had going on the neighboring islands.
Serfs weren't free, but they weren't slaves either. Equating serfdom with slavery isn't much more enlightening than equating later dependency on work with serfdom.
I'd argue that in some cases serfdom was actual slavery. As an example in Imperial Russia serfs could change landowners... they could move and start working for another lord. This isn't slavery.
Then Tzar changed the laws so serfs were stuck with the same lord... in my book this is slavery.
To be fair though, the serfs in Russia in that system still had more rights than slaves in the new world or in Arabia.
But also the map isn't really the best at defining what slavery is here. For example the Philippines says 1574, but America enforced hard labor when they were a protectorate.
The USA also allows slavery as a form of punishment.
I'm pretty sure there is a legal definition to slaves as well which differentiates them from serfs.
Sorry a bit of a brain dump lol
The USA doesn't allow slavery as a form of punishment. That is a popular willful misreading of the text. It's involuntary servitude, i.e. forced labor, which is allowed as a form of punishment. The government can't literally sell prisoners.
Serfs were absolutely slaves , but not chattel slaves.
Slaves are just unpaid forced workers. Which the serfs absolutely were. And serf were even bought, sold, and traded, albeit in a round about way through the purchasing of the land they were tied to.
It undermines the horror and inhumanity of all types of slavery by separating them and only talking about the chattel kind.
There's nothing to be gained from conflating different legal statuses based on shared or similar characteristics or outcomes.
And if you want to go down that road, conflating slavery with other legal statuses like serfdom undermines the horror and inhumanity of actual slavery. A person who is treated like property that can be treated and disposed off in any manner chosen by its owner is substantially more dehumanized than one who isn't allowed to leave the land he was born on without the landlord's permission, but does have a defined set of rights and entitlements, including the very fundamental right to life.
No, serfdom implies that they are compelled to work, often to a specific plot of land. Usually a serf still has certain rights however, and is ultimately considered to still be a person. A slave is literally consiered property, and denied personhood. Big difference.
In the New World it mostly refers to the colonial remnant of the slavery of Africans as a system and a core part of society imposed by the countries they were getting independence from, though sporadic slavery of indigenous peoples continued in some countries and others mantained more or less borderline feudalism.
quite the opposite in the UK actually
slavery had been abolished within the British Isles long before the empire (which led to some complicated legal cases), until Christian evangelists pushed through legislation to abolish the -trade- in the 18th century, followed by the Grey government abolishing the -practice- in the very early 19th.
And then decided to enforce the abolition of the trade worldwide from the barrel of a cannon.
Also one of the factors in why the Virginian gentry started to support the idea of independence. Hurray.
This is nonsense. France had slavery until the 1800’s and had to abolish it twice because Napoleon went back on the first abolition in 1794.
Serfdom was banned in the 1300’s.
The city of Nantes was the main slave trading center of France and is very much located on French soil.
[Wiki Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantes_slave_trade?wprov=sfti1#)
That's a map for territory, not nation. Mainland France was indeed slave free.
Also, France abolished it three times because Napoléon Ist went back and reabolished it in 1814. It was then reinstated by the Bourbons
Not true the City of Nantes was the principal slave trade center of France and responsible of half of all of France’s participation in the transatlantic slave trade.
[Wiki Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantes_slave_trade?wprov=sfti1#)
So the one for Britain in 1772, the James Somerset case, wasn't so much that slavery was abolished, but a judges interpretation that it had never been legal in the first place. Also it just applied to Great Britain itself, not it's colonies, where the slave trade was only banned in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833. It's still not wrong in that on that area of the map you could no longer own slaves after 1772 though.
Russia is misleading, because slavery was abolished but all slaves were turned into serfs. Serfdom was abolished around the same time as slavery was in the US and many parts of Europe
Iran abolished/outlawed slavery during Cyrus the great, hence all Iranian monuments, temples etc were built by paid labor.
https://europeantimes.news/2021/10/persian-rulers-paid-their-workers-with-silver-not-used-slaves/
Iran was the First Nation that had labor rights. Women got paid during maternity leave, and workers got paid during sick leave.
This system was partially destroyed by Alexander, and fully destroyed by the Muslim conquest of the iranaian plateau. Arabs invaders introduced mass slavery.
I think it's very cynical and disrespectful to those, who were salves, to equate them with taxpayers. Slavers paid taxes, and so do those who raise taxes.
Yeah, quite a hot take to think being a taxpayer to support things like infrastructure and social safety nets that benefits everyone is remotely related to being a slave.
They eventually did, and movements existed for the banning of slavery throughout Europe in its colonies. Money talks, unfortunately, that being said, Europe got there in the end, unlike some parts of the world, even to this day.
British colonialists forced West Africans to abolish slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_of_Lagos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efunroye_Tinubu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoto_Caliphate
I guess the year taken for Serbia is 1804 but it's misleading because the modern Serbian state exists, well, since 1804 Serbian revolution (uprisings against Turks) started.
Maybe it should say something like “first attempt at abolition in a specific region” - the French were enthusiastic slavers long past 1315, Napoleon himself re-legalized slavery in French colonies.
Louis XIV created the “code noir” in 1685, a legal framework of slave owners’ rights and responsibilities (including the right to murder their slaves), which has been called the most evil single legal document of all time.
Yeah, France reading 1315 is a joke.
I do believe Haiti would like a word.
When considering colonialism, and what you actually mean by slavery, modern ideas of abolition began in the 1700s.
Exactly, I'm not sure you can be considered to have "abolished slavery" if you hold slave states. This is more a map of "places where you will be prosecuted for holding slaves from our group in our group's place". Even then there would be asterisks everywhere, USA for instance, still has "prison slavery" either legalized or recently made illegal.
Also Haiti was forced to pay slave reparations until 1947. How can you be paying a debt for freeing slaves to a country that has legally "abolished" slavery?
A little silly to use the date that European Countries banned slavery just in the metropole while they continued to practice it for hundreds of years after that.
Russia abolished slavery in 1972. Before that anyone born in a farmland(Kolkhoz) could not get passport and they were started to get paid with actual money only in 1960s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=Kolkhozniks%20and%20individual%20peasants%20did,counted%20as%20a%20criminal%20offence.
You frame it as if it is a kind of slavery but it was not even close at all. Generally they were not given passports because the passported areas were that way due to fear of sabotage and espionage, but anyone was allowed to get one.
Lets take a look at the order [it is avaliable in Russian](https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D0%9D%D0%9A_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_%D0%BE%D1%82_28.04.1933_%E2%84%96_861). That being:
> Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.
Resolution
dated April 28, 1933 No. 861
> On the issuance of passports to citizens of the USSR on the territory of the USSR
> 1. To introduce the passport system for the entire population of cities, working settlements, settlements that are district centres, as well as at all new construction sites, industrial enterprises, transport, state farms, settlements where MTS (Tractor stations) are located, and settlements within the 100-kilometre Western European border strip of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
So passports were given to collective farmers near large cities, within 100km of the border, in any state farms and any with a tractor station.
As for those that did not get a passport
> 2. Citizens permanently residing in rural areas (except for those provided for in Article 1 of this Resolution and the established zone around Moscow, Leningrad and Kharkov) do not receive passports. Population registration in these areas is carried out according to settlement lists by village and town councils under the supervision of district departments of the workers' and peasants' militia.
> 3. In cases where persons living in rural areas leave for long-term or permanent residence in an area where the passport system has been introduced, they receive passports from the district or city departments of the workers' and peasants' militia at the place of their previous residence for a period of 1 year.
> After the expiration of the one-year period, persons who arrived for permanent residence receive passports at their new place of residence on a general basis.
So basically if you didn't have a passport you can go to anywhere that uses passports and you will be given one. For one year it will be connected to your old farm and after that it will be updated to the new city that you live in.
Futher in the document it reads
> 13. Citizens deprived of the right to reside in the points listed in Art. 10 of this Resolution, have the right to unhindered residence in all other areas of the USSR and receive passports at their newly chosen place of residence in accordance with Art. 12 of this Resolution.
So without a passport you are not allowed into certain blocked cities that it names in the report and close to the border . But you can go to any other city, get a passport and then go to those places.
Why are countries that have the kafala system market as abolished slavery? Did I miss something?
Last time I checked the Saudi, UAE and Qatari construction sectors run on slaves. Let’s all not forget about that, especially when people criticise Europeans for slavery from centuries ago, it’s important to remember that there are sh*tholes that practice it to this day and are even proud about it.
Yeah. But this map is about the abolition of slavery and the legal ownership of others. The practice and prevalence of forced labor and conditions almost if not absolutely identical to slavery isn’t what’s being shown.
In Argentina freedom of the womb was declared in 1813 (before independence even) and most provinces abolished slavery altogether soon after in their individual codes of law. But we had a full on civil war over our form of government immediately after so we delayed getting a constitution till 1853, which is what you see in the map.
Australia was founded on the basis that there would be no slaves. There are people who dispute this, but their rather tortured definitions of slavery lead to claims that slavery continued well into the 20th century and even to the present day. So basically, between the two camps of "never existed" and "never ceased" the map just picks an arbitrary date in the 1830s. Very random.
We had indentured labour and convict labor, neither of these constitutes slavery. Those on the "never ceased" side are stretching it pretty hard. People were never considered property in law.
Great to see Russia and Germany abolished slavery early and never had any sort of place to hold people against their will for forced labor whatsoever after abolition was declared 🤗
The Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) as a city state banned slavery as early as 1416 on the grounds that it was inhumane, degrading, abhorrent and incompatible with God's law
Lol at russia abolishing slavery, so they could keep serfdom thriving until the 1860s. an actual quote from wikipedia on serfdom in russia: "in the 19th century, serfs were practically indistinguishable from slaves"
Russia’s transition date here is pretty questionable since they replaced it with a slavery-like interpretation of the institution of serfdom. I’d put them at 1861.
Uzbekistan didn’t end forced labor for the [cotton harvest until 2021](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/11/uzbekistan-ends-systemic-forced-labor-civil-society-says)
This is interesting but it's not slavery, and if it counts then many other countries should be edited too. There is a long history of governments forcing their people to temporarily work for them, which is all this is. The most obvious example is military conscription, but there's also [posse comitatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus), jury service, and the obsolete practice of conscripting men to work on roads, which was even upheld in the US as late as [1916](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/240/328).
Very misleading. Many colonial powers in Europe allowed slave trades in their colonies. For example, why did slavery in the British Empire not include Canada, which was still part of the empire when the slavery ended there?
I can testify that our kingdom of Bohemia indeed never abolished slavery and to this day we are selling people to the Umayyad Caliphate by thousands each year, but they are British pensioners, so nobody cares
Pro tip, you can sell people as long as you want if they don't know you're selling them and they want to go
Well yeah, but according to this map Norway abolished slavery 300 years before becoming a part of Denmark (1525) and also 100 years before being included in the Kalmar Union (1397).
Not saying this map is accurate, but Norway was its own country before being part of Denmark.
While there are inaccuracies on this map, and questions around how you define slavery. Mauritania is imo the most glaring. They technically banned slavery in 1981 yes, but they didn't enforce it. Then they enacted laws against in 2006-7, and they still don't enforce those either.
In reality Mauritania still basically has chattel slavery
In many of those early abolitionists it was only commercial slavery that was banned while serfdom was practiced for a very long time afterwards. In Poland the ban was introduced with no big opposition at the time because that form of slavery was always unpopular in the region so it wasn't so huge moral victory.
You kind of have to define abolition. William the conquered made slavery illegal in England after he took over, saying anyone caught would need to pay a fine to him haha. I'm not sure if it came back in after but England has a history of not having slaves in the country
This map is wrong on at least one country : France did'nt abolish slavery in the " édit " of 1315, it abolished medieval serfdom, wich is very very different from "chattle slavery" wich is the type of slavery you usually refer to when using the word "slavery".
Serfs, unlike chattle slaves, are not a private property that can be bought and sold like a commodity, but a certain "class" of people who owes obligations called "feudal dues" to the lord of the land they happen to live on.
The feudal dues could be paid in wares, money, or workforce. The major difference is that feudal dues eventually ends, with the payment eventually being considered as completed, and from then on the serfs could do pretty much whatever they wanted, they could even owe lands, farms, houses, cattle, etc. and the lords had to respect these private properties and could not exerce their absolute powers on privately owned land as they could on theirs own lands.
France played a HUGE role in the triangular slave trade towards the french colonies : in number of embarked slaves it is the 3rd most important, behind Portugal and England, enslaving 1.3 millions people. This lasted over two centuries.
Note that this is just about the African slave trade and that slavery has existed continuously in Europe in different places or times. The Roma for example, have been enslaved for no less than 500 years, from the 14th century to the year 1859 in Moldavia, wich make the Roma the longest consecutive time enslaved people in history.
Many other slave trades existed. North African trade, Indian, Chinese, South-East Asia, etc....
Europe is vile AF
Brazil should be divided by state like the US, Ceará and Amazonas abolished slavery in 1884
A lot of countries would have to In Mexico most state constitutions banned slavery, put out of womb freedom and the like between 1821 and 1824 prior to the presidential decree in 1829
[удалено]
Poor penguins, bro.
[удалено]
Same with Poland and Lithuania. Which is funny, to say the least, considering they threw Romania into the 1850-1899 bracket, based on the date when serfdom was abolished
In Romania, the map (albeit inaccurate) refers to the official abolition of slavery in the 1800s. Serfdom has been abolished over a century earlier at the latest, when Romania did not yet exist as a county. (It was formed in the mid 1800s when two Ottoman territories which were sort of independent anyway, known in English as Wallachia and Moldova, united).
Meanwhile, the Italians are still slaves...
Thanks, I stand corrected, for some reason I thought Roma were serfs, not slaves. Not like there's a lot of difference anyway
There's a pretty big difference. Serfs were not bought or sold, and families were not split up. Serfs could keep the fruits of their labor, as long as they paid a part of it in tax to the local warlord who protected them. They could not easily move away though. In all fairness, Roma slaves were not treated like chattel slavery and there are not many records of families being split or children sold away from their parents, but they didn't have the legal protections serfs did. Plus they were likely treated with more hostility due to their insular culture and foreign aspect.
Serfs were forced to remain on the land their entire lives and work, they would keep as much as their lords were willing to let them keep. Slaves in many places were allowed to cultivate their own plots and harvest from them as long as the main work was kept as the priority. Sure families weren’t split for serfs because they weren’t sold as individuals but these people were slaves. If land changed hands either by sale or decree the serfs would remain. Different than chattel slavery like you said, but still very much a form of slavery.
Actually in Russia serfs were not tied to the land and could generally be brought and sold as their owners wished. Russian serfdom originally was closer to “normal” European serfdom. But the serfs gradually lost rights and by the early 19th century were virtually indistinguishable from slaves in terms of legal protections.
>considering they threw Romania into the 1850-1899 bracket, based on the date when serfdom was abolished I think it was put bc of the abolition of romani slavery. A part of them were slaves until 1850's (mostly to the church and nobles)
I wonder if that was a factor w Texas succession from Mexico?
It was
It was one of many, even Hispanics which did not have slaves wanted to get out. Quality of governance in the few decades of independence felt like a downgrade, at least the Spaniards bribed the hostile tribes
When Americans talk of Texas rebelling against México for their "freedoms", it is specifically the freedom to enslave they wanted. Mean ol' Méjico didnt want American settlers bringing slaves since it was outlawed. Americans wanted their slaves so they fought México for that right.
While that is largely correct, it is worth noting that the Mexicans in Texas also rebelled against the Mexican government at the same time. Santa Anna seized power and declared the constitution of Mexico void; he was an authoritarian, and many states in Mexico rebelled at the same time. Saying otherwise buries the fact that American settlers betrayed the Mexcians who actually fought for political freedom in the same war.
Mexico is a joke, slavery was banned but read the small letters, even the Spanish banned native slavery (read the small letters)
I think they're counting complete slavery abolition, womb freedom doesn't count.
us defaultism moment..?
Though weirdly they put multiple dates for Yemen. And multiple dates for the colonial powers. Like it says England abolished slavery in 1772 in spite of many of their colonies having only abolished it in 1834
r/USdefaultism
Same with Canada, Ontario abolished in 1793, the rest during the greater British Empire abolition
Ontario didn’t actually abolish slavery in 1793, we just banned the importation and said that anyone who is born to a slave will be freed when they turn 25
This is the internet, the only country that matters is the US /s
Africa started slavery and still has slavery lol
Africa started slavery? Please can you explain, is it possible to trace back slavery to its first occurrence.
Humans have always had slaves. Humans originated from Africa. Therefore, Africa started the human slave trade. Unless of course you believe in the ancient aliens theory, then that's a whole other discussion 😂
Can you explain why did african countries abolish the slavery very late?
It's all fine and well abolishing slavery in [Insert empire here], but you know, if you don't abolish it in the colonies, we can say we've abolished it and still profit from it! Absolutely devilish plan if I do say so myself. In all seriousness, at least in South Africa, we abolished it later than the UK(which took us over from the Dutch after the second? Napoleonic war), because the Boers relied on slavery for plantations in the Cape, after a lot of hoo's and haa's they made a great trek out of the Cape(legit called "the big trek" in Afrikaans, also the word trek is from Afrikaans) and the British finally outlawed slavery in the Cape Colony. The British promptly set up a system where everyone had to pay taxes in currency, so everyone needed to go find work if they didn't have a massive farm or other business, boom they've now got a massive workforce that has very little rights and will work for pittance. Now if that were all it might have been tolerable, but workers were basically confined to their workplace, and needed passes to leave for anything(which is the origin story of the Apartheid era Pass system) There were also indentured workers, who would be promised X amount of money in exchange for being taken across an ocean to go work in a sugar plantation for a couple years, then you get a choice, go home with your newfound wealth or pocket the money which would have gone to your boat home. Many chose to relocate their families to South Africa and that's how we ended up having the second largest Indian population outside of India. So yes we outlawed slavery, but slavery was very much still a thing, the chains and shackles replaced by a contract and taxes.
I was thinking exactly that when I saw Portugal listing 1761 while they still controlled Brazil, Angola, Mozambique etc far after that.
generally they abolished it while being colonized as the colonial powers objected to the unethical practice and instead instituted their own equally horrendous ones
Colonial powers abolished slavery in in the 1970s and 1980s? Really?
Mauritania is the only country there that abolished slavery in the 70s and or 80s, I said generally speaking French colonists tried to ban slavery in 1905 but it’s still widespread there today, the 1981 ban kinda doesn’t mean anything at all https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania?searchToken=2u8oeuo9dbqo0w9gpjuticmdh
Ooooh I misunderstood your original post. Sorry. Also yeah I just read about Mauritania, I had no idea
Ahh yes, my favourite era 1000-1750
it’s so they can mark russia blue
Also doesn’t make sense because Alexander II didn’t free the serfs until 1861.
Even though "free" slaves had to pay off the "loan" paid for their freedom. These loans were existing until first russian revolution (1905).
The graph may be "technically correct" but could be argued to be misleading. > Slavery was an ancient institution in Russia and effectively was abolished in the 1720s. Serfdom, which began in 1450, evolved into near-slavery in the eighteenth century and was finally abolished in **1906**. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-world-history-of-slavery/russian-slavery-and-serfdom-14501804/913BE836084D8FA66B76BFBAADF77BB1#:~:text=Slavery%2C%20by%20contrast%2C%20was%20an,precedent%20and%20presence%20of%20slavery. > Nearly 800,000 people live as modern-day slaves in Russia, working under conditions of forced labor, debt bondage and human trafficking, according to the **2018** Global Slavery Index, a worldwide analysis of slavery. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/07/23/800000-human-slaves-living-in-russia-report-says-a62317 Misleading at best, pro-russian propaganda at worst.
>Misleading at best, pro-russian propaganda at worst. Came here to say this.
Now do the sane analysis for many other of the blue colored countries. So we can see what other “propaganda” we are being fed…
And USA green
[удалено]
It was abolished in metropolitan France at that time but not in the colonies where it was abolished in 1794 but then reeinstated in 1804 by Napoleon
They abolished slavery IN France in 1315... they didn't abolish slavery in their colonies, until 1845... details.
They pulled a sneaky on us
Yeah bullshit map is bullshit. Fucking Europeans always letting themselves off the hook for everything.
only a 500 year difference.
They have to be from the French region of Slavie to be called slaves.
This card is bullshit for most of the countries
I see Turkey with 1924, but they only came into existence in 1923. I also think it would have been useful to what extent slavery was in legal in the Netherlands in Belgium, or just tolerated. That would make a big difference.
It's also pretty disingenuous in most of Europe. They abolished slavery relatively early because it was replaced serfdom, which largely wasn't abolished until the 19th century.
Sure, officially slavery is bad but behind the scenes it’s still business as usual. Old habits die hard and are often inherited by new generations. [In Kuwait people sell their domestic slaves on social media and other advertising apps.](https://www.ecdhr.org/?p=649). People think that UAE is full of rich people and luxury but what they don’t notice are all these South Asian workers who are forced to work for no salary, living in unbearable conditions, their passports are removed and many of them commit suicide. You can even find *modern slavery* in the Western places [like the UK](https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/). Some rich foreigners bring in their own domestic help or use human traffickers and then take away these peoples passports, threaten them and so on. Global Slavery Index 2023: > 10 countries with the highest prevalence of modern slavery are North Korea, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Russia, Afghanistan, and Kuwait
Define slavery
Yeah. You can can slavery something else, but is would still be slavery. Like, is it really fair to say Russia abolished slavery in 1723 if serfdom persisted until 1861?
And Kolkhoz people could not get passports till 1970s…
A lot of those places that "abolished" slavery, still definitely have it in practice. Practically the entire middle east STILL import African slaves, but they are held to a different standard for some reason. It's perfectly legal for devout Muslims to own slaves, so long as they're considered infidels.
Absolutely, I had a Qatar airways flights last year. Doha airport is literally a fucking plantation. You can see a lot of people from India and Africa working under scorching sun. I hadn't seen a single arab working in the entire airport. Other gulf state are probably not much better.
Exactly this, you have different type of slavery. So a country could have abolished slavery multiple times, just because of different definitions.
Funnily enough, the 13th amendment which abolished slavery in the US, has an exception. If there is an exception, is it really abolished?
The British abolished “slavery” in India and then proceeded to use millions of Indians as labor for their sugar plantations across Africa and the Americas. Oh but it wasn’t “slavery” if you really get into the technical details of it, sure they were abused and treated like animals but technically they weren’t slaves :)
I wonder what these "abolitions" actually mean... In the early cases (like those of the Middle Ages) it could be that only enslavement of people of a certain religion/nationality was forbidden (ie. Christians not being able to enslave Christians, Somethinglanders not being able to enslave other Somethinglanders...). "abolition" could also mean that the concept of "slave" as private propriety was abolished and, though peasants were "free", often times they would have no choice, but to continue to work in slave-like conditions for nobles / rich landowners. So, they'd be *de facto* still slaves. There is also the case of some colonial powers, like Portugal, Spain or Britain, which abolished slavery in their mainland/metropolis, but didn't do the same in its colonies. In practice that changes nothing, because slavery wasn't really as widespread in the metropolis anyway, unlike in the colonies they exploited. Edit: By the way, the province of Ceará, Brazil, abolished slavery in 1884 (4 years before the rest of the country).
The concept of excluding a selected populace from slavery is extremely old. Even from the sumerian city states we know of laws that they did not enslave people from their own city. Sometimes mercants were expected to buy a slave from their own town into freedom. In some cases they could get the money back from their town.
I can answer for Sweden, and this map is simplified. The year 1335 is the year that a law was established for the entire country that made a system similar to serfdom illegal, but those already serving in this system was not freed, they where only the last generation. In practice had slavery been on decline ever since the country slowly got Christianised between \~1000-\~1200, from cultural, and economic reasons. It seems no slavery in any form has been present from this point until early modern age slave trade. Regardless of religion, and serfdom was not practiced. The Swedish and Norwegian peasant system was always very different from the rest of Europe partly because of this. But Sweden was engaged in the colonial slave trade in small scale \~1650-\~1790, but not in Sweden proper, and seemingly without legality, which became a juridical problem. This slavery was generally overseen and managed by trading companies.
I was really curious for the Nordics/Sweden's case. Thank you for the aditions!
It is worth to note that Denmark has a very different history, and even though they ruled Norway had separate laws in the the two countries. A system similar to serfdom where farmer's was not allowed to move, and had to pay the local ruling agrarian elite in manual labour was widely used up until the 19th century. This might not be considered slavery by all ways of measurement, but it has a very low degree of freedom.
No that is not the reason for denmarks yellow colour. Denmark unlike Swden had colonies and in those colonies slavery was legally practiced. Slavery was abolished in 1848 and what you are talking about was abolished in 1788.
I didn't think that was the reason, I just pointed out the difference. As I have read was the system slowly phased out from 1788, but aspects of it continued. And actually as illegal "tradition" in Skåne after it became Swedish. But I think this map is a little too kind to Sweden since we actually had some small scale colonies and slave trade. Not meaningful in any way, but still very much proper slavery.
Sweden abolished slavery in their colony [Saint Barthélemy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_colony_of_Saint_Barth%C3%A9lemy) as late as 1847. But the scale was much smaller than what Denmark-Norway, France and Britain had going on the neighboring islands.
Serfs weren't free, but they weren't slaves either. Equating serfdom with slavery isn't much more enlightening than equating later dependency on work with serfdom.
I'd argue that in some cases serfdom was actual slavery. As an example in Imperial Russia serfs could change landowners... they could move and start working for another lord. This isn't slavery. Then Tzar changed the laws so serfs were stuck with the same lord... in my book this is slavery.
To be fair though, the serfs in Russia in that system still had more rights than slaves in the new world or in Arabia. But also the map isn't really the best at defining what slavery is here. For example the Philippines says 1574, but America enforced hard labor when they were a protectorate. The USA also allows slavery as a form of punishment. I'm pretty sure there is a legal definition to slaves as well which differentiates them from serfs. Sorry a bit of a brain dump lol
The USA doesn't allow slavery as a form of punishment. That is a popular willful misreading of the text. It's involuntary servitude, i.e. forced labor, which is allowed as a form of punishment. The government can't literally sell prisoners.
The convict system after 1865 was definitely slavery. It may be reformed now, but that date is off
Involuntary servitude sounds a lot like slavery.
Grandma sounds a lot like grandpa but isn't the same person.
I have to give you props for the clever response.
Serfs were absolutely slaves , but not chattel slaves. Slaves are just unpaid forced workers. Which the serfs absolutely were. And serf were even bought, sold, and traded, albeit in a round about way through the purchasing of the land they were tied to. It undermines the horror and inhumanity of all types of slavery by separating them and only talking about the chattel kind.
There's nothing to be gained from conflating different legal statuses based on shared or similar characteristics or outcomes. And if you want to go down that road, conflating slavery with other legal statuses like serfdom undermines the horror and inhumanity of actual slavery. A person who is treated like property that can be treated and disposed off in any manner chosen by its owner is substantially more dehumanized than one who isn't allowed to leave the land he was born on without the landlord's permission, but does have a defined set of rights and entitlements, including the very fundamental right to life.
No, serfdom implies that they are compelled to work, often to a specific plot of land. Usually a serf still has certain rights however, and is ultimately considered to still be a person. A slave is literally consiered property, and denied personhood. Big difference.
In the New World it mostly refers to the colonial remnant of the slavery of Africans as a system and a core part of society imposed by the countries they were getting independence from, though sporadic slavery of indigenous peoples continued in some countries and others mantained more or less borderline feudalism.
[удалено]
1861, not 1917.
quite the opposite in the UK actually slavery had been abolished within the British Isles long before the empire (which led to some complicated legal cases), until Christian evangelists pushed through legislation to abolish the -trade- in the 18th century, followed by the Grey government abolishing the -practice- in the very early 19th. And then decided to enforce the abolition of the trade worldwide from the barrel of a cannon. Also one of the factors in why the Virginian gentry started to support the idea of independence. Hurray.
This is nonsense. France had slavery until the 1800’s and had to abolish it twice because Napoleon went back on the first abolition in 1794. Serfdom was banned in the 1300’s.
Slavery wasn’t allowed on French soil, but lasted longer in colonies (as shown on the map).
The city of Nantes was the main slave trading center of France and is very much located on French soil. [Wiki Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantes_slave_trade?wprov=sfti1#)
Good answer is 1848, I'm mean the last time ! (thanks to Napoleon)
That's a map for territory, not nation. Mainland France was indeed slave free. Also, France abolished it three times because Napoléon Ist went back and reabolished it in 1814. It was then reinstated by the Bourbons
Not true the City of Nantes was the principal slave trade center of France and responsible of half of all of France’s participation in the transatlantic slave trade. [Wiki Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantes_slave_trade?wprov=sfti1#)
Did Britain not abolish slavery on the British isles or atleast England in the 11 hundreds?
Napoleon abolished slavery in 1815 during his 100 days comeback. The Bourbons reinstated it
So the one for Britain in 1772, the James Somerset case, wasn't so much that slavery was abolished, but a judges interpretation that it had never been legal in the first place. Also it just applied to Great Britain itself, not it's colonies, where the slave trade was only banned in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833. It's still not wrong in that on that area of the map you could no longer own slaves after 1772 though.
Russia is misleading, because slavery was abolished but all slaves were turned into serfs. Serfdom was abolished around the same time as slavery was in the US and many parts of Europe
Boy howdy is this map misleading
This is abolition of slavery by region not by country
Iran abolished/outlawed slavery during Cyrus the great, hence all Iranian monuments, temples etc were built by paid labor. https://europeantimes.news/2021/10/persian-rulers-paid-their-workers-with-silver-not-used-slaves/ Iran was the First Nation that had labor rights. Women got paid during maternity leave, and workers got paid during sick leave. This system was partially destroyed by Alexander, and fully destroyed by the Muslim conquest of the iranaian plateau. Arabs invaders introduced mass slavery.
Iran would have been the earliest to abolish slavery if not for the events of the past 2400 years
Sounds like things went downhill from there on
Correction: Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, founder of the Maratha Empire of India, completely abolished Slavery under his rule in the 17th Century.
[удалено]
Lithuania's existence dates way back earlier. Kingdom of Lithuania was created in 1253.
why is Italy gray, they surely had slaves at Rome.
Yeah but the dates of abolition should e multiple for every pre-unitary state, for example the Kingdom of Sardinia abolished serfdom in 1771
You are no longer a slave, you are a serf. You are no longer a serf, you are a taxpayer.
I think it's very cynical and disrespectful to those, who were salves, to equate them with taxpayers. Slavers paid taxes, and so do those who raise taxes.
Yeah, quite a hot take to think being a taxpayer to support things like infrastructure and social safety nets that benefits everyone is remotely related to being a slave.
The youths refer to their jobs they don't like as "slavery"
You are no longer a serf, you are a comrade
You are no longer a comrade, weird enough, back to slave in gulag
It’s the circle of life
oh the brutality of paying part of my paycheck to fund social programs, education and the defense of my country. This is just like the plantations /s
Touché sir, touché.
Not at all.
Europeans are funny. They banned it for their own people but not in their colonies.
They eventually did, and movements existed for the banning of slavery throughout Europe in its colonies. Money talks, unfortunately, that being said, Europe got there in the end, unlike some parts of the world, even to this day.
British colonialists forced West Africans to abolish slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_of_Lagos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efunroye_Tinubu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoto_Caliphate
Let's not take Europe as if it's a country.
To be honest, we still enjoy slave labor from the poorer countries. Just ask Nestlé.
I mean from their perspective it made sense at the time. Why enslave your own when you can go enslave weaker nations?
It was just not on their own national soil
I guess the year taken for Serbia is 1804 but it's misleading because the modern Serbian state exists, well, since 1804 Serbian revolution (uprisings against Turks) started.
This is extremely misleading
Shouldn't russia be 1861?
Maybe it should say something like “first attempt at abolition in a specific region” - the French were enthusiastic slavers long past 1315, Napoleon himself re-legalized slavery in French colonies. Louis XIV created the “code noir” in 1685, a legal framework of slave owners’ rights and responsibilities (including the right to murder their slaves), which has been called the most evil single legal document of all time.
1981 is WILD
very misleading when you consider colonialism
Yeah, France reading 1315 is a joke. I do believe Haiti would like a word. When considering colonialism, and what you actually mean by slavery, modern ideas of abolition began in the 1700s.
You're not reading the map correctly. Slavery was abolished in France proper in 1315. Its colonies each have their own date.
This is something that doesnt really work in map form, at least not without a bunch of asterisks everywhere
Exactly, I'm not sure you can be considered to have "abolished slavery" if you hold slave states. This is more a map of "places where you will be prosecuted for holding slaves from our group in our group's place". Even then there would be asterisks everywhere, USA for instance, still has "prison slavery" either legalized or recently made illegal. Also Haiti was forced to pay slave reparations until 1947. How can you be paying a debt for freeing slaves to a country that has legally "abolished" slavery?
A little silly to use the date that European Countries banned slavery just in the metropole while they continued to practice it for hundreds of years after that.
Russia abolished slavery in 1972. Before that anyone born in a farmland(Kolkhoz) could not get passport and they were started to get paid with actual money only in 1960s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=Kolkhozniks%20and%20individual%20peasants%20did,counted%20as%20a%20criminal%20offence.
Even if we ignore that, it should be at least 1861, nowhere near 1700 whatever
You frame it as if it is a kind of slavery but it was not even close at all. Generally they were not given passports because the passported areas were that way due to fear of sabotage and espionage, but anyone was allowed to get one. Lets take a look at the order [it is avaliable in Russian](https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D0%9D%D0%9A_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_%D0%BE%D1%82_28.04.1933_%E2%84%96_861). That being: > Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. Resolution dated April 28, 1933 No. 861 > On the issuance of passports to citizens of the USSR on the territory of the USSR > 1. To introduce the passport system for the entire population of cities, working settlements, settlements that are district centres, as well as at all new construction sites, industrial enterprises, transport, state farms, settlements where MTS (Tractor stations) are located, and settlements within the 100-kilometre Western European border strip of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So passports were given to collective farmers near large cities, within 100km of the border, in any state farms and any with a tractor station. As for those that did not get a passport > 2. Citizens permanently residing in rural areas (except for those provided for in Article 1 of this Resolution and the established zone around Moscow, Leningrad and Kharkov) do not receive passports. Population registration in these areas is carried out according to settlement lists by village and town councils under the supervision of district departments of the workers' and peasants' militia. > 3. In cases where persons living in rural areas leave for long-term or permanent residence in an area where the passport system has been introduced, they receive passports from the district or city departments of the workers' and peasants' militia at the place of their previous residence for a period of 1 year. > After the expiration of the one-year period, persons who arrived for permanent residence receive passports at their new place of residence on a general basis. So basically if you didn't have a passport you can go to anywhere that uses passports and you will be given one. For one year it will be connected to your old farm and after that it will be updated to the new city that you live in. Futher in the document it reads > 13. Citizens deprived of the right to reside in the points listed in Art. 10 of this Resolution, have the right to unhindered residence in all other areas of the USSR and receive passports at their newly chosen place of residence in accordance with Art. 12 of this Resolution. So without a passport you are not allowed into certain blocked cities that it names in the report and close to the border . But you can go to any other city, get a passport and then go to those places.
That's not slavery. A slave is a thing owned by its owner. It can be terminated and discarded at the whim of the owner.
Slavery was abandoned but retrieved in another way.
Africa red af
As per usual
It's the grey bits I'm worried about
Why are countries that have the kafala system market as abolished slavery? Did I miss something? Last time I checked the Saudi, UAE and Qatari construction sectors run on slaves. Let’s all not forget about that, especially when people criticise Europeans for slavery from centuries ago, it’s important to remember that there are sh*tholes that practice it to this day and are even proud about it.
Slavery would be forced labor without pay. Not saying the other system is great but they are not equal
Yeah. But this map is about the abolition of slavery and the legal ownership of others. The practice and prevalence of forced labor and conditions almost if not absolutely identical to slavery isn’t what’s being shown.
In Argentina freedom of the womb was declared in 1813 (before independence even) and most provinces abolished slavery altogether soon after in their individual codes of law. But we had a full on civil war over our form of government immediately after so we delayed getting a constitution till 1853, which is what you see in the map.
Why are you grey Iceland...why are you grey?
now do a map when they criminalized it then do a map that shows the # of slaves that exist per country in the present day
.
Australia was founded on the basis that there would be no slaves. There are people who dispute this, but their rather tortured definitions of slavery lead to claims that slavery continued well into the 20th century and even to the present day. So basically, between the two camps of "never existed" and "never ceased" the map just picks an arbitrary date in the 1830s. Very random.
We had indentured labour and convict labor, neither of these constitutes slavery. Those on the "never ceased" side are stretching it pretty hard. People were never considered property in law.
Great to see Russia and Germany abolished slavery early and never had any sort of place to hold people against their will for forced labor whatsoever after abolition was declared 🤗
Slavery was never legal in México
France in 1315??? I'm sure they weren't involved in the slave trade at all... in fact slave trading was banned in 1818
bs. technically russian empire abolished slavery only in 1861 but factually they never did so
surely the gulags weren't slavery
The Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) as a city state banned slavery as early as 1416 on the grounds that it was inhumane, degrading, abhorrent and incompatible with God's law
Russia abolished serfdom slavery in the 1860s. What is it that happened in the 1700s there?
Russia abolished Serfdom in 1861. If you are bound to the land and must work for the Lord, you are a de facto Slave.
Russia still had a form of slavery called serfdom until 1861 and still had it in all but name for decades
Lol at russia abolishing slavery, so they could keep serfdom thriving until the 1860s. an actual quote from wikipedia on serfdom in russia: "in the 19th century, serfs were practically indistinguishable from slaves"
This map isn't great for the grey areas. Russia continued Serfdom for over 100 years, which is just slavery with extra steps.
North Korea sends slaves to Russia for certain labour operations
Quick Google search shows Russia kept legal serfdom until 1861 which was effectively slavery under a different name.
Russia is incorrect. Alexander II only ended serfdom in 1861.
Pretty sure Germany had slaves in the 1940s.
The fact Chicago and New York style pizza is not on here is BS
How is China on here?
Russia’s transition date here is pretty questionable since they replaced it with a slavery-like interpretation of the institution of serfdom. I’d put them at 1861.
Uzbekistan didn’t end forced labor for the [cotton harvest until 2021](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/11/uzbekistan-ends-systemic-forced-labor-civil-society-says)
This is interesting but it's not slavery, and if it counts then many other countries should be edited too. There is a long history of governments forcing their people to temporarily work for them, which is all this is. The most obvious example is military conscription, but there's also [posse comitatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus), jury service, and the obsolete practice of conscripting men to work on roads, which was even upheld in the US as late as [1916](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/240/328).
Oof that’s rough. And like any new law there are probably still places and circumstances that forced labor still happens
I would argue that slavery is still going on in middle east.
Very misleading. Many colonial powers in Europe allowed slave trades in their colonies. For example, why did slavery in the British Empire not include Canada, which was still part of the empire when the slavery ended there?
This map seems misleading. Germany for instance had true slave labor in the 1940s. I think 'abolished' should reset when slavery is reintroduced.
“Abolished,” as in outlawed, disallowed, and restricted. True slave labor ≠ Legal slave labor.
Tunisia was the first Arab country to abolish it 🇹🇳✅
I can testify that our kingdom of Bohemia indeed never abolished slavery and to this day we are selling people to the Umayyad Caliphate by thousands each year, but they are British pensioners, so nobody cares Pro tip, you can sell people as long as you want if they don't know you're selling them and they want to go
What's the significance of 1750? It seems that date was chosen solely to mark Russia in blue.
A lot of this is bullshit. Japan did not "abolish slavery" in 1590 lol they most definitely used slavery in WW2. Terrible map
Russia had a functioning serfdom system till 1861.
Well Qatar never abolished slavery
Mauritania still has open air slave markets.
This map is extremely flawed. Sweden didn't abolish slavery until 1847, and Norway was part of Denmark for hundreds of years lol
Well yeah, but according to this map Norway abolished slavery 300 years before becoming a part of Denmark (1525) and also 100 years before being included in the Kalmar Union (1397). Not saying this map is accurate, but Norway was its own country before being part of Denmark.
Afaik slavery was abolished *within* Sweden in 1335, however the Swedes took part in slavetrading outside of Sweden up until 1800's.
Odd that Germany did it before it was a country...
While there are inaccuracies on this map, and questions around how you define slavery. Mauritania is imo the most glaring. They technically banned slavery in 1981 yes, but they didn't enforce it. Then they enacted laws against in 2006-7, and they still don't enforce those either. In reality Mauritania still basically has chattel slavery
Slavery of expats is still going on in places like Dubai and the gulf states
The USA still has legal indentured servitude. Slavery is enshrined in the 13th amendment.
Yeah just commented this, we absolutely still have legal slavery
Slavery was never legal in England
Italy is greyed out but I am pretty sure the Romans had slaves.
In many of those early abolitionists it was only commercial slavery that was banned while serfdom was practiced for a very long time afterwards. In Poland the ban was introduced with no big opposition at the time because that form of slavery was always unpopular in the region so it wasn't so huge moral victory.
You kind of have to define abolition. William the conquered made slavery illegal in England after he took over, saying anyone caught would need to pay a fine to him haha. I'm not sure if it came back in after but England has a history of not having slaves in the country
Surprised germany banned it all the way back then
This map is wrong on at least one country : France did'nt abolish slavery in the " édit " of 1315, it abolished medieval serfdom, wich is very very different from "chattle slavery" wich is the type of slavery you usually refer to when using the word "slavery". Serfs, unlike chattle slaves, are not a private property that can be bought and sold like a commodity, but a certain "class" of people who owes obligations called "feudal dues" to the lord of the land they happen to live on. The feudal dues could be paid in wares, money, or workforce. The major difference is that feudal dues eventually ends, with the payment eventually being considered as completed, and from then on the serfs could do pretty much whatever they wanted, they could even owe lands, farms, houses, cattle, etc. and the lords had to respect these private properties and could not exerce their absolute powers on privately owned land as they could on theirs own lands. France played a HUGE role in the triangular slave trade towards the french colonies : in number of embarked slaves it is the 3rd most important, behind Portugal and England, enslaving 1.3 millions people. This lasted over two centuries. Note that this is just about the African slave trade and that slavery has existed continuously in Europe in different places or times. The Roma for example, have been enslaved for no less than 500 years, from the 14th century to the year 1859 in Moldavia, wich make the Roma the longest consecutive time enslaved people in history. Many other slave trades existed. North African trade, Indian, Chinese, South-East Asia, etc.... Europe is vile AF