Re: General Discussions
Reply #2540 –
...............................................
Australia was one of the 52 nations that abstained and that has drawn criticism from the left. However, I think that there's merit in Britain's argument that it is wrong to "create a hierarchy of historical atrocities"...............................
I think we need to be wary, as per the Trump/Jacinta/Albanese comparison, of falling into the trap of false equivalence. The list of atrocities by humans is seemingly endless, but some are indisputable worse than others. The point that "all slavery is bad, why should slave trade x get the attention", has been discussed a lot. In scope, duration, contemporaneous and enduring trauma and devastation caused, and a whole bunch of other effects, the Euro American slave trade is without equal.
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.