While reading the book that Anybody linked to in another thread (https://archive.org/details/fifteenyearsamon00greerich), I came across the following passage dealing with the phenomenon of enslaved "indians". This was not something I was aware of.

"That slavery exists not only among these Mexican and Indian traders, but also among the Mormons, and by authority of the Prophet, is perhaps not generally known ; but it has been reduced to a regular system, in the territory, undertheir administration. Young Indian girls and boys, who are captives among the various tribes, are purchased, and trained
as servants, and are now as much a recognized item of property there as the negro slaves of Louisiana or Kentucky."

Anyone here know anything more about this?

There is a lot you can find on the subject but what I have found is not necessarily reflected the way your book describes. Here is a blurb I found (on Wikipedia) that seems to sum up a lot of other articles I looked at:

"For modern-day trafficking, see Human trafficking in Utah.

"Slavery as it occurred in the borders of what is now the state of Utah has a complicated history. Under Spanish and Mexican rule, Utah was a major source of illegal slave raids by Mexican, Ute and Navajo slave traders, particularly on Paiute tribes. When Mormon pioneers entered Utah, they introduced African slavery and provided a local market for Indian slavery. After the Mexican–American War, Utah became part of the United States and slavery was officially legalized in Utah Territory on February 4, 1852, with the passing of the Act in Relation to Service. It was repealed on June 19, 1862 when Congress prohibited slavery in all US territories."

There were many in on the slave trade, or, if we were following modern trends would call the "service industry" as the relabeling trend continues. Many forget that different Native American tribes got along about as well as the Israelis and Palestinians perhaps.

Complicated. I've only known a little of all this but now you want to make me read something more.

A story I read that shocked me was a tale about how raiding tribes took babies and children to The Mormons because they would give them guns for them. It started when a Mormon was offered a child for sale and he refused. The Indians killed the child on the spot.

It became a thing and the Mormons tried some to find homes for these kids but ended up treating them as slaves.

I found it sad that there's these people thinking Laminates were their spiritual responsibility and then just turned them into chattel slaves.

> I found it sad that there's
> people thinking Laminates were
> their spiritual responsibility
> and then just turned them into
> chattel slaves.


"How I wish I'd known this before marrying all those White women!"

Elder Olddog, everyone's favorite Laminate, as in, "love is a many-layered thing."

It occurred throughout the Western Hemisphere although it persisted in the western US longer

https://americanindian.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/seminars-symposia/the-other-slavery-perspective.pdf

https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/essay/indian-slavery-americas

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/native-americans-indigenous-slavery-west/620785/

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1574&context=nmhr

Charles Rich, one of Brigham Young's apostles, had African American slaves on his ranch in northern Utah. He "paid" one of them as tithing to the church and that man was later seen working on Brigham's properties.

https://issuu.com/utah10/docs/uhq_volume39_1971_number1/42

I saw an interesting article the other day about slavery in Northern U.S.A. It's not about Indigenous Peoples being enslaved but about Blacks, as in the South. As the writer says, many people don't realize that slavery didn't only occur in the South.

The article itself is a quick overview but some of the links included may lead to other sources of interest.

Here's the link. Please, all, excuse a couple of brief political comments - they're not the purpose for me posting this link and, of course, we are asked not to discuss partisan politics here.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/opinions/remembering-slavery-in-the-north-zelizer/index.html

No 'partisan' politics...

What about bipartisan politics?  You know, when we agree with both sides of the issue?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No 'partisan' politics...
>
> What about bipartisan politics?  You know, when
> we agree with both sides of the issue?

Ask the Big Boss (Concrete Zipper - a moniker to put the fear of god into rule-breakers - one would think). Your query is above my pay grade. :P

Both-sideism is the curse of humankind. Somebody said.

What about 'no-sideism'?

You know, sitting on the fence, catching a little sun...

The Comanches took slaves when they raided villages. They even took white European girl captive, forced them to work, to marry, and have babies.

Empire of the Summer Moon is a great book that talks about this. I really recommend it.

Going back further in time the Mayans and Aztecs kept slaves in the Americas, as did the Sumerians and Babylonians in the Near East. The Egyptians employed huge numbers of slaves, including the Jews, Europeans and Ethiopians.
That's from the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter1.shtml#:~:text=The%20term%20slave%20has%20its,of%20forced%20and%20unpaid%20labour.

A little side conversation, but has anybody seen The Northman. I just watched it today. Vikings raped and pillaged, and took slaves. Granted, it's not a documentary, but there's been no blacklash or anybody trying to debunk the story.

Has anybody heard about the etymology of the word "slave"?

The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD. From the BBC article above.

You have it backwards.

The word "slave" stems from an Indo-European root dating to over 3000 years ago. It was present in Latin and Greek and Sanskrit and Persian long before the word was used to describe the Slavs--in fact, well before the Slavs existed as a distinct people.

In fact, the ethnic name for Slav was assigned to those people because they were "reduced to a servile state by conquest." Slavery was not named after Slavs, the Slavs were named after slavery.

Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, 2022 edition, p. 834.

And while you are right that many different cultures have had slaves, the nature of that position varied widely. None of the examples you cited, for example, meant that the progeny of slaves would be slaves as well. Modern European chattel slavery was historically unique.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2023 12:54AM by Lot's Wife.

> The term slave has its origins in the word slav.
> The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern
> Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of
> Spain during the ninth century AD. From the BBC
> article above.

I'm going to add another note on this etymology, which is obviously something I find interesting.

First, the Muslims of Spain did not capture Slavs. The Magyars did, and they sold many of them to both the Caliphate (by the Black Sea) and Constantinople. Spanish Arabs may have been involved in the later trade, but the captives tended to die by the time they got to Venice because of the hot and unsanitary conditions in the holds of ships. Shipping them on to Spain would have been exceptionally expensive.

More importantly, how would the Magyars (Hungarians) and/or the Arabs have named their captives "Slavs" or "slaves" given that the word did not exist in their languages? "Slav/e" is Indo-European, not Arabic or Hungarian, and hence almost certainly arose from an Indo-European source--like Slavic or the Swedish spoken by the Rus who conquered the region between about 800 and 1000 CE.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2023 01:35AM by Lot's Wife.