1
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by Thryleon -I'm not sure that it's quite so clear cut, and that's why I don't think that a hierarchy is appropriate.
It's estimated that at least 10% and probably as much as 25% of the Scandinavian population were slaves during the Viking age and the vast majority of those captured by the Vikings were sold on to slave traders from the Middle East. Mitochondrial DNA studies of the Icelandic population indicate that more than 60% of the initial colonising female population were Gaelic and most likely slaves. Then there's the Arab or Trans-Saharan slave trade that endured from the 7th to the 20th century and involved the enslavement of an estimated 9M Africans in the Middle East.
I don't want to get caught up in this jockeying for pole position in the Suffering F1. I feel quite comfortable with the reading I've done and I'll leave it there. Trying to compete wrt who suffered the most does the cause more harm than good, and ends up a kind of self-cannibalism, that dilutes the message rather than keeping it sharp and focussed.
Whether they named this or something else is of secondary importance. If the final aims of this process are achieved, it creates momentum, precedent and potential for others to follow. Future groups will be able to analyze what worked, what did not etc., and be in a better position as a result. It could also splinter off into related histories, such as our own First Nations peoples, who whilst not enslaved as such, have suffered immensely, certainly deserve a lot more than they have received thus far.
