Should a muslim nation colonize America, where would they get their slaves from?

[Deleted member 70671]

Hello lads, i've been lurkin' for a while, first thread here.

So, i've been thinking about this...
Should a muslim nation (an Al-Andalus nation resisting the Reconquista, some Almohad-like entity remaining powerful in northwest Africa, dunno) colonize America, where would they get their slaves from?
If i recall correctly, they have that "people of the book" stuff, so they wouldn't go on slaving christians, right?
They wouldn't be able to do with the natives because, IIRC, the portuguese tried it but the natives knew the "jungle routes" so they escaped en masse.
And... They wouldn't be able to do it with West Africa (where, IIRC, most american slaves come from) because they are muslims too, so... Where'd they go? Congo? Wouldn't that be too long of a way?

Also, i'm a newbie, so is this board just for timelines or you can discuss some other AH-related stuff, if it fits the before 1900 margin?

 

[SilverPhantom2]

Personally, I think economics trumps religion. There were Christian issues with enslaving Africans (and I don't think there was a vast Muslim population enslaved that ended up in the Americas via the slave routes) that ended up being tossed out in favor of the economics of the situation.

So to answer your question, the triangular trade routes would probably still hold true with a few laws in place like "Any slave that converts to Islam cannot be enslaved" but eventually tossing that out once slaves realize there's an easy out from their situation. So yeah. Africa most likely.

Also, with their routes to/from India, you probably end up with a daisy-chain of slave routes with a considerable Hindu minority of slaves. This will make for an interesting alt-Muslim New World culture.

 

[iori]

They wouldn't be able to do it with West Africa (where, IIRC, most american slaves come from) because they are muslims too, so... Where'd they go? Congo? Wouldn't that be too long of a way?

Actually Islam was'nt very prevalent in West Africa outside the Sahara-Sahel (and their it was'nt and still is'nt universal either), indeed much of what's now Mali and the states surrounding it did'nt become Muslim until the 19th century, and even then West Africa as a whole today is'nt an Islamic region, rather it's home to large Muslim, Christian and Indigenous faith* populations, and the former two in many areas tend to be syncretic.


*The majority of Togo's population follow indigenous beliefs while indigenous faiths comprise very large minorities in Sierra Leone and Guinea Bissau and can be found, to differing extents, everywhere else in West Africa.

 

[Flocculencio]

Personally, I think economics trumps religion. There were Christian issues with enslaving Africans (and I don't think there was a vast Muslim population enslaved that ended up in the Americas via the slave routes) that ended up being tossed out in favor of the economics of the situation.

So to answer your question, the triangular trade routes would probably still hold true with a few laws in place like "Any slave that converts to Islam cannot be enslaved" but eventually tossing that out once slaves realize there's an easy out from their situation. So yeah. Africa most likely.

Also, with their routes to/from India, you probably end up with a daisy-chain of slave routes with a considerable Hindu minority of slaves. This will make for an interesting alt-Muslim New World culture.

You're not likely to see Indian slaves for the same reasons as in OTL- the political situation in India didn't allow for it. Slaving was widespread in West Africa because slavers were able to exploit the relatively disorganized tribal governments and leverage on the existing tradition of enslaving defeated enemies. Neither of these factors are present in India. Of course there may be some Indian slaves, just as there were some white slaves but these, in either case would be opportunistically captured POWs and the like as opposed to the commodities of an actual slaving industry as in West Africa.

 

[iori]

You're not likely to see Indian slaves for the same reasons as in OTL- the political situation in India didn't allow for it. Slaving was widespread in West Africa because slavers were able to exploit the relatively disorganized tribal governments and leverage on the existing tradition of enslaving defeated enemies. Neither of these factors are present in India. Of course there may be some Indian slaves, just as there were some white slaves but these, in either case would be opportunistically captured POWs and the like as opposed to the commodities of an actual slaving industry as in West Africa.

You could eventually end-up with a system like OTL where whomever ends-up controlling India used them as indentured labour, which is pretty close to slavery, and exporting them to where they need them.

 

[Socrates]

Almost certainly non-Muslim Africa: what became the Gold Coast, the Cameroons, the Congos, Angola etc.

 

[Flocculencio]

You could eventually end-up with a system like OTL where whomever ends-up controlling India used them as indentured labour, which is pretty close to slavery.

Ah but there's an important distinction. Indentured servants generally come of their own free will. There is no need to take the same elaborate security measures that are required for the transport of slaves. Transporting slaves from India to the New World is going to be far more expensive and have a much higher mortality rate than either transporting indentured servants (and note most Indian indentured servants came over in the late 19th century when the voyage was far faster and conditions far better) from India or transporting slaves from Africa.

Also the diaspora of Indian indentured labour came after the population growth in the 16th-18th centuries caused by the introduction of New World crops. The reason the indentured labourers were willing to sign up was because of a labour glut in India caused by a higher population (among other factors related to the colonial takeover of India). Orior to the 19th C this labour glut simply doesn't exist and therefore the opportunities for intensive slaving do not exist either

 

[jycee]

Personally, I think economics trumps religion. There were Christian issues with enslaving Africans (and I don't think there was a vast Muslim population enslaved that ended up in the Americas via the slave routes) that ended up being tossed out in favor of the economics of the situation.

So to answer your question, the triangular trade routes would probably still hold true with a few laws in place like "Any slave that converts to Islam cannot be enslaved" but eventually tossing that out once slaves realize there's an easy out from their situation. So yeah. Africa most likely.

This would pretty much still be the case. There were many economic/demographic factors that contributed to the mass enslavement of West Africans through the trianglar trade that would not be butterflied away regardless of who discovers the Americas, including: an established tradition of slavery, surplus population, the existence of many small rival kingdoms fighting for power/influence, and the fact that short term economic benefits of joining the trade seemed too good to ignore. Hell, even if West Africans discovered and settled the Americas (Brazil and Caribbean) most of their slaves would still be West African.

As it was stated, even in OTL Christians had a few issues with enslaving Africans but in the end short term economics trumped them. Muslims will likely face the same problem, and I don't see the outcome being any different. There might be a small "white" Christian minority amongst the slaves, but it would be negligible and ultimately mix into the general pool.

One thing that might be different is that down the line they might not make up the clear black/white racial definition to justify it. Or the addition of Indian slaves but it all seems too impractical and would not amount too much.

 

[Sian]

while they'll probably chase slaves in the indigenous parts of Africa (and perhaps even some of those of the 'wrong' Muslim faith), they'll also be a buyer or even patron of the Barbary pirates raiding outbacks in Europe

 

[Uriel]

Muslims had now problem with capturing and keeping christian slaves (there was some protection for those people of the book already under islamic rule but not for those outside of it).

And they imported large numbers of slaves from Africa. IOTL mainly from the East but that was probably more a matter of convinience.

There is an interesting photo from the Versailles Conference:

The caption gives the black man in the back as "Faisals slave, name unknown"

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

This would pretty much still be the case. There were many economic/demographic factors that contributed to the mass enslavement of West Africans through the trianglar trade that would not be butterflied away regardless of who discovers the Americas, including: an established tradition of slavery, surplus population, the existence of many small rival kingdoms fighting for power/influence, and the fact that short term economic benefits of joining the trade seemed too good to ignore. Hell, even if West Africans discovered and settled the Americas (Brazil and Caribbean) most of their slaves would still be West African.

As it was stated, even in OTL Christians had a few issues with enslaving Africans but in the end short term economics trumped them. Muslims will likely face the same problem, and I don't see the outcome being any different. There might be a small "white" Christian minority amongst the slaves, but it would be negligible and ultimately mix into the general pool.

One thing that might be different is that down the line they might not make up the clear black/white racial definition to justify it. Or the addition of Indian slaves but it all seems too impractical and would not amount too much.

What about this? Andalusi slave traders purchase West African slaves and bring them on the "Middle Passage" to the Caribbean. During this time they are not converted nor given an opportunity to. Once they arrive in the New World, they are given the option of conversion, with conversion allowing them to be free of their master. However, once they are in the Caribbean with no money or resources, they can't exactly go home. And when cutting sugar cane as a wage labourer or sharecropper is the only means of employment.... You can basically get a slave workforce without actual slavery, as long as you can get the Africans to the Caribbean in the first place.

 

[Faeelin]

Ah but there's an important distinction. Indentured servants generally come of their own free will.

Actually, this depended on the colony. Barbadosed became a term for forcing englishmen to work on barbardos, which, as a malarial hellhole, was not popular unless you were going to be rich.

 

[Zireael]

What about this? Andalusi slave traders purchase West African slaves and bring them on the "Middle Passage" to the Caribbean. During this time they are not converted nor given an opportunity to. Once they arrive in the New World, they are given the option of conversion, with conversion allowing them to be free of their master. However, once they are in the Caribbean with no money or resources, they can't exactly go home. And when cutting sugar cane as a wage labourer or sharecropper is the only means of employment.... You can basically get a slave workforce without actual slavery, as long as you can get the Africans to the Caribbean in the first place.

Not a bad idea.

 

[eliphas8]

West Africa, probably from the same providers as the Christians got theirs given how most where some kind of Pagan captured by muslim warlords.

 

[Deleted member 70671]

Actually Islam was'nt very prevalent in West Africa outside the Sahara-Sahel (and their it was'nt and still is'nt universal either), indeed much of what's now Mali and the states surrounding it did'nt become Muslim until the 19th century, and even then West Africa as a whole today is'nt an Islamic region, rather it's home to large Muslim, Christian and Indigenous faith* populations, and the former two in many areas tend to be syncretic.


*The majority of Togo's population follow indigenous beliefs while indigenous faiths comprise very large minorities in Sierra Leone and Guinea Bissau and can be found, to differing extents, everywhere else in West Africa.

Ah, my bad. I thought of the Malinese empire, but now seeing on a map, i see it didn't dominate the Ivory Coast, Benin and etc, so... You're right.

What about this? Andalusi slave traders purchase West African slaves and bring them on the "Middle Passage" to the Caribbean. During this time they are not converted nor given an opportunity to. Once they arrive in the New World, they are given the option of conversion, with conversion allowing them to be free of their master. However, once they are in the Caribbean with no money or resources, they can't exactly go home. And when cutting sugar cane as a wage labourer or sharecropper is the only means of employment.... You can basically get a slave workforce without actual slavery, as long as you can get the Africans to the Caribbean in the first place.

Well, now that's clever. Evil, but clever.
Thanks for the answers, y'all!

 

[Tobit]

Considering that the advancement of Andalusian science would be allowed to continue, I wouldn't be surprised if they have developed an inoculation process for small pox. So if the Andalusians do set up plantations they might be able to sustain themselves entirely on Indian indentured servants.

 

[Elfwine]

Considering that the advancement of Andalusian science would be allowed to continue, I wouldn't be surprised if they have developed an inoculation process for small pox. So if the Andalusians do set up plantations they might be able to sustain themselves entirely on Indian indentured servants.

Considering how vulnerable to the natives were to smallpox, I wonder how you have a form of inoculation that doesn't encourage that problem.

 

[Tobit]

Considering how vulnerable to the natives were to smallpox, I wonder how you have a form of inoculation that doesn't encourage that problem.

That's a good point, and pretty fearsome to think about.

 

[Flocculencio]

Actually, this depended on the colony. Barbadosed became a term for forcing englishmen to work on barbardos, which, as a malarial hellhole, was not popular unless you were going to be rich.

Of course- I'm not disputing the shanghaiing that went on but in the case of the large scale transportation of Indian indentured servants to the Caribbean, indentures were mostly voluntary.

 

[Zuvarq]

Their slaves would still mostly come from West Africa, because there were still plenty of pagans around. Some would come from East Africa. Some would be European/Mediterranean. And a trace few would be Turkic.