Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok let's go over it one more time, slowly...
What I've said DID NOT exist in Russia was Black slavery, the way it existed in the US. What Russia did have however, was serfdom, and with serfdom Russian nobility simply didn't need any import of slaves, while the lower class ( i.e. serfs) were fulfilling the part of slave labor, and much longer at that, than in other European countries, where feudalism gave way to a new formation of capitalism about a couple of centuries earlier. ( Earlier, during the Feudalism formation Europe practiced serfdom as well - i.e. had its own system of slavery with no "imports" from different continents.)
The BBC article that you quoted proves my point. The only part that I question there is the part where it equates the word "slave" with "slav." I have my doubts about it, because slavery is a very, very old institution, ( mentioned already in the bible,) but Slavs ( as ethnic group) showed up on historic scene not earlier than 8th-9th century.
Quote:
Since when is importation the definition of what makes a captive a "slave"? Russia most certainly had slavery and it was abolished for "those of local origin" by Peter the Great in 1723. This abolition converted the household slaves into serfs.
Sorry, that's all fairy-tales, and the particular paragraph in Wiki on a subject ( that you are most likely referring to) is very misleading, unless you are familiar with the whole system of feudalism in Russia, and the gradation of "slaves," (which were identified by a totally different word,) and whose situation in society varied greatly. If you want to make yourself more familiar with a subject, then here it is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kholop
Abolition of serfdom has got nothing to do with Peter the Great, who not only didn't abolish serfdom in Russia, but in fact strengthened the institution. ( The abolition of serfdom came to Russia only at the same time as abolition of slavery in the US.)
So no "abolition for those of local origin" and then some imaginary "replacement with imported Africans" - that's all fantasies that I guess pushed in order to serve someone's agenda.
Peter simply changed few codes, in order to bring more structure in serfdom, to codify it and to find more ways to bring more taxes in the state coffers.
He didn't need any "imported slaves" for this reason, so there were no Black slaves in Russia, other than few purchased for the most prosperous families in Moscow and St. Petersburg because of their "exotic looks" but that's about it.
The only famous Black in Russian history was Hannibal- Peter's favorite; other than that Russians didn't know much about Blacks at all, neither did they "import" them. ( Otherwise you'd see African gene popping in Russians by 1917, yet there was really none.)
Quote:
Anglos (as well as the Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Dutch) imported African slaves to the Western Hemisphere to fill the dearth of labor.
I guess they did try, but when they did that, these nations were already entering the capitalism formation, and the whole notion behind capitalism in Europe was that unlike with feudalism, the slave labor was not considered productive. That's why African slavery never really took hold there.
Quote:
So once again, the initial statement made by Frank Lucas left something to be desired in terms of its totality. However, you specifically brought up Russia and whether you like it or not, there were African slaves transported to Russia. It doesn't matter if they were five African women imported to be dark-skinned representatives in Peter the Great's dinner service line. The fact of the matter is the Russians did import them.
All right, if the presence of five black servants in Russia represents "Black slavery" in Russia, be it.
Quote:
In terms of the whole blood-quantum issue you have with blacks in Transcaucasia and the use of Caucasians as slaves in Russia, I'm not going to even touch that. That is not something I brought up and that is your individual axe to grind. But since you brought up Circassians, they were one of the ethnic groups that were captured as slaves and became Mamluks.
As far as I remember Mamaluks had everything to do with Islamic world and slavery there, and this seems to be their origin;
"The most enduring Mamluk realm was the military caste in medieval Egypt that rose from the ranks of slave soldiers who were mainly of Kipchak, Turkic,[1] Circassian,[2] Georgian,[3][4][5] and Coptic Egyptian.[6] Many Mamluks could also be of Balkan origin (Albanian, Greek, and South Slavic).[7][8] "
Which is OK, BUT... what it has got to do with Africans of Central and West Africa -
people that became source of slavery in the US?
While I totally understand the whole notion of European nations building their wealth on the labor of people of color; taking some in slavery, and colonizing others ( which is all going back to the bible, - and it's true, it's part of the bigger picture,) I don't quite understand how this is exactly connected to those living in the region of the Niger river - those who went in slavery specifically in the US?
I understand that all these different "branches" - people of color that is, ( AND part of Russians I suppose, (plus Jews is yet another notable group)) belong to the same "tree that "went down,"" as it's mentioned in the bible, but they all lived in different parts of the world - be that India or Asia, not only Africa, so I don't quite understand the whole notion of Afro-centrism in the US among African-Americans, when it comes to the bible.
Are you suggesting " Extremist Christianity " as a propeller of this difference in thought process..?
No, Christianity in general, which was all about new ideas ( comparably to the Pagan societies.) At that point I guess Christianity simply couldn't exist in any other but "extremist" forms.
Then later Islam played the same role of bringing the new ideas for the structure/way of life/religion/philosophy to pagan societies.
Ok let's go over it one more time, slowly...
What I've said DID NOT exist in Russia was Black slavery, the way it existed in the US. What Russia did have however, was serfdom, and with serfdom Russian nobility simply didn't need any import of slaves, while the lower class ( i.e. serfs) were fulfilling the part of slave labor, and much longer at that, than in other European countries, where feudalism gave way to a new formation of capitalism about a couple of centuries earlier. ( Earlier, during the Feudalism formation Europe practiced serfdom as well - i.e. had its own system of slavery with no "imports" from different continents.)
The BBC article that you quoted proves my point. The only part that I question there is the part where it equates the word "slave" with "slav." I have my doubts about it, because slavery is a very, very old institution, ( mentioned already in the bible,) but Slavs ( as ethnic group) showed up on historic scene not earlier than 8th-9th century.
Sorry, that's all fairy-tales, and the particular paragraph in Wiki on a subject ( that you are most likely referring to) is very misleading, unless you are familiar with the whole system of feudalism in Russia, and the gradation of "slaves," (which were identified by a totally different word,) and whose situation in society varied greatly. If you want to make yourself more familiar with a subject, then here it is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kholop
Abolition of serfdom has got nothing to do with Peter the Great, who not only didn't abolish serfdom in Russia, but in fact strengthened the institution. ( The abolition of serfdom came to Russia only at the same time as abolition of slavery in the US.)
So no "abolition for those of local origin" and then some imaginary "replacement with imported Africans" - that's all fantasies that I guess pushed in order to serve someone's agenda.
Peter simply changed few codes, in order to bring more structure in serfdom, to codify it and to find more ways to bring more taxes in the state coffers. He didn't need any "imported slaves" for this reason, so there were no Black slaves in Russia, other than few purchased for the most prosperous families in Moscow and St. Petersburg because of their "exotic looks" but that's about it.
The only famous Black in Russian history was Hannibal- Peter's favorite; other than that Russians didn't know much about Blacks at all, neither did they "import" them. ( Otherwise you'd see African gene popping in Russians by 1917, yet there was really none.)
I guess they did try, but when they did that, these nations were already entering the capitalism formation, and the whole notion behind capitalism in Europe was that unlike with feudalism, the slave labor was not considered productive. That's why African slavery never really took hold there.
All right, if the presence of five black servants in Russia represents "Black slavery" in Russia, be it.
As far as I remember Mamaluks had everything to do with Islamic world and slavery there, and this seems to be their origin;
"The most enduring Mamluk realm was the military caste in medieval Egypt that rose from the ranks of slave soldiers who were mainly of Kipchak, Turkic,[1] Circassian,[2] Georgian,[3][4][5] and Coptic Egyptian.[6] Many Mamluks could also be of Balkan origin (Albanian, Greek, and South Slavic).[7][8] "
Which is OK, BUT... what it has got to do with Africans of Central and West Africa -
people that became source of slavery in the US?
While I totally understand the whole notion of European nations building their wealth on the labor of people of color; taking some in slavery, and colonizing others ( which is all going back to the bible, - and it's true, it's part of the bigger picture,) I don't quite understand how this is exactly connected to those living in the region of the Niger river - those who went in slavery specifically in the US?
I understand that all these different "branches" - people of color that is, ( AND part of Russians I suppose, (plus Jews is yet another notable group)) belong to the same "tree that "went down,"" as it's mentioned in the bible, but they all lived in different parts of the world - be that India or Asia, not only Africa, so I don't quite understand the whole notion of Afro-centrism in the US among African-Americans, when it comes to the bible.
This thread is about Anglo economic and political strength. Wide swaths of posts in this thread clearly had to be deleted because they went waaaaay off topic. One component that was relevant to the discussion was the use of African slavery by Anglos in North America and the Caribbean. In one post, an individual stated that African slavery went all over the world. Your response was, and I quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
P.S. Blacks were not "taken all over the world as slaves" - Russia never had them ( just an example.)
It was you and you alone that decided to insert Russians into this thread. What you are frothing about above is immaterial to this discussion. Russia did in fact have black slaves. You are making this massive case that because Russia had so few slaves in the imperial court, they didn't have any. In the year 1800, New Hampshire had 8 slaves in the entire state. The number is miniscule, New Hampshire had no need to import more slaves, and the number of slaves was down to a grand total of ONE in 1840. However, it is undeniable (regardless of the limited scope) that New Hampshire had black slaves and Anglos were responsible for transporting them there.
Accordingly, I never said that Peter the Great outlawed serfdom. He abolished slavery. Everything you say after that is immaterial. You have your doubts about the origin of the word "slavery" having some relationship to the word "slav". That is your personal issue. I've already provided a source corroborating this origin.
It doesn't matter that black slaves were imported for their exotic looks. The fact of the matter is by your own admission at some juncture they were indeed imported, thus contradicting your initial statement that "Russia NEVER had them".
You are correct, Mamluks have little to do with the initial post of this thread. You went off on a tangent about Caucasians having never been taken as slaves and Circassians. I never brought up these ethnic groups. I merely mentioned Mamluks because they became a military caste in the Muslim world and assuredly their descendants factored into Anglo "colonial" expansion into Ottoman Turkish territories and the Arab world. Because some of the Mamluks were Circassians, the hope was to tie your tangent about Transcaucasia and Russia back to a relevant discussion within this thread.
I have no issue whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with my assertions. You are insistent upon introducing completely unrelated topics to this forum and then attempt to involve me (or others) in these divergences. By quoting your Russian example I was highlighting that your "one offs" had no relevance to this thread. So by all means continue to talk about Russia and I'll await the next poster choosing to discuss Anglo hegemony.
I'll play racist's advocate here and say its not so much the Anglo's preference for law and order but more for the third world mongrel's preference for chaos and barbarianism which brought the Anglos in to save those savages. Sorry but you can't argue or interpret history, rules are rules and as an Anglo I follow em. BTW I'm being sarcastic politically correct gestapos.
This thread is about Anglo economic and political strength. Wide swaths of posts in this thread clearly had to be deleted because they went waaaaay off topic. One component that was relevant to the discussion was the use of African slavery by Anglos in North America and the Caribbean. In one post, an individual stated that African slavery went all over the world. Your response was, and I quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
P.S. Blacks were not "taken all over the world as slaves" - Russia never had them ( just an example.)
It was you and you alone that decided to insert Russians into this thread. What you are frothing about above is immaterial to this discussion. Russia did in fact have black slaves. You are making this massive case that because Russia had so few slaves in the imperial court, they didn't have any. In the year 1800, New Hampshire had 8 slaves in the entire state. The number is miniscule, New Hampshire had no need to import more slaves, and the number of slaves was down to a grand total of ONE in 1840. However, it is undeniable (regardless of the limited scope) that New Hampshire had black slaves and Anglos were responsible for transporting them there.
Accordingly, I never said that Peter the Great outlawed serfdom. He abolished slavery. Everything you say after that is immaterial. You have your doubts about the origin of the word "slavery" having some relationship to the word "slav". That is your personal issue. I've already provided a source corroborating this origin.
It doesn't matter that black slaves were imported for their exotic looks. The fact of the matter is by your own admission at some juncture they were indeed imported, thus contradicting your initial statement that "Russia NEVER had them".
You are correct, Mamluks have little to do with the initial post of this thread. You went off on a tangent about Caucasians having never been taken as slaves and Circassians. I never brought up these ethnic groups. I merely mentioned Mamluks because they became a military caste in the Muslim world and assuredly their descendants factored into Anglo "colonial" expansion into Ottoman Turkish territories and the Arab world. Because some of the Mamluks were Circassians, the hope was to tie your tangent about Transcaucasia and Russia back to a relevant discussion within this thread.
I have no issue whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with my assertions. You are insistent upon introducing completely unrelated topics to this forum and then attempt to involve me (or others) in these divergences. By quoting your Russian example I was highlighting that your "one offs" had no relevance to this thread. So by all means continue to talk about Russia and I'll await the next poster choosing to discuss Anglo hegemony.
Of course I will continue to speak about Russia, (in a context of discussion of Anglo-cultures of course,) because it all goes back to the post # 2 in this thread. Someone later on brought an argument ( from very Afro-centric point of view I assume) that the basis of Anglo-power ( strong governments and particularly economies) was basically Black slavery, with "Black" defined very loosely.)
And that's the reason why I HAD to refer to a bigger picture, and that's why Russia has been brought into conversation, with its abolition of serfdom, since both colonial America and Imperial Russia shared certain similarities in this respect. ( Plus of course I had to touch on a subject of "Anglos" in Europe, since the OP didn't ask about "Americans," but "Anglos."
Since you apparently can't follow the whole thread and therefore realize why these subjects came into discussion, I don't see a point of addressing a question to you how Russia could have imported "Black slaves" in and after Peter's times, if Peter ( according to you) "abolished slavery."
You don't understand apparently as well that when I have a problem with definition of this or that word, it doesn't matter who/what was the source of that definition, even if you gave a reference to a source.
So if you find my posts irrelevant to a subject - by all means don't respond/comment. You are not obligated to.
Of course I will continue to speak about Russia, (in a context of discussion of Anglo-cultures of course,) because it all goes back to the post # 2 in this thread. Someone later on brought an argument ( from very Afro-centric point of view I assume) that the basis of Anglo-power ( strong governments and particularly economies) was basically Black slavery, with "Black" defined very loosely.)
And that's the reason why I HAD to refer to a bigger picture, and that's why Russia has been brought into conversation, with its abolition of serfdom, since both colonial America and Imperial Russia shared certain similarities in this respect. ( Plus of course I had to touch on a subject of "Anglos" in Europe, since the OP didn't ask about "Americans," but "Anglos."
Since you apparently can't follow the whole thread and therefore realize why these subjects came into discussion, I don't see a point of addressing a question to you how Russia could have imported "Black slaves" in and after Peter's times, if Peter ( according to you) "abolished slavery."
You don't understand apparently as well that when I have a problem with definition of this or that word, it doesn't matter who/what was the source of that definition, even if you gave a reference to a source.
So if you find my posts irrelevant to a subject - by all means don't respond/comment. You are not obligated to.
You can't even follow your own posts. After the construction of the "City of Bones", Peter was certainly aware of how negative as shadow he cast upon his subjects who did not share his ethnicity. He abolished slavery for his own subjects (the Slavs), not the institution itself.
What were these similarities between Colonial America and Imperial Russia? Antebellum slavery in the South and Russian serfdom? I must have missed this in your irrelevant posts that deleted. Please by all means equate Anglo colonialism (Britain the pre-eminent capitalist global power for two centuries) to feudalism in Russia.
I am eagerly awaiting this one. And remember, while emancipation of Russian serfs took place roughly as the same time as emancipation of slaves, you're talking about Colonial America above (part of an imperial system) not about the United States of America (complete with its "democratic" Constitution). Don't worry, I won't feel compelled to respond. However I must admit the yarns you are spinning are becoming quite entertaining!
You can't even follow your own posts.After the construction of the "City of Bones", Peter was certainly aware of how negative as shadow he cast upon his subjects who did not share his ethnicity. He abolished slavery for his own subjects (the Slavs), not the institution itself.
What were these similarities between Colonial America and Imperial Russia? Antebellum slavery in the South and Russian serfdom? I must have missed this in your irrelevant posts that deleted. Please by all means equate Anglo colonialism (Britain the pre-eminent capitalist global power for two centuries) to feudalism in Russia.
I am eagerly awaiting this one. And remember, while emancipation of Russian serfs took place roughly as the same time as emancipation of slaves, you're talking about Colonial America above (part of an imperial system) not about the United States of America (complete with its "democratic" Constitution). Don't worry, I won't feel compelled to respond. However I must admit the yarns you are spinning are becoming quite entertaining!
The yarns you are spinning are even more entertaining.
So it were the Black slaves now that built St. Petersburg?
P.S. My deleted posts were actually relative to a subject, ( in the context of a second post.) They were deleted in order to avoid any racial slurs, which I really didn't have any, using some definitions from a different language ( and country) unrelated to the US/Black slavery.
Since I look at this whole "Anglo-power" thing from biblical point of view, I am not into racism; to me ( whatever took place in this or that part of the world) are all pieces of a one big and intriguing puzzle.
The yarns you are spinning are even more entertaining. So it were the Black slaves now that built St. Petersburg?
P.S. My deleted posts were actually relative to a subject, ( in the context of a second post.) They were deleted in order to avoid any racial slurs, which I really didn't have any, using some definitions from a different language ( and country) unrelated to the US/Black slavery.
Since I look at this whole "Anglo-power" thing from biblical point of view, I am not into racism; to me ( whatever took place in this or that part of the world) are all pieces of a one big and intriguing puzzle.
No, it was Russian slaves. Peter the Great imported black slaves about a decade later in 1723 when he abolished slavery among the Slavs (Russians). Peter was of German ethnicity. He used slave labor to build St. Petersburg as the primary goal of his reign was to create a stylized "European" empire. To your point about importing black slaves due to their exoticism, I would surmise that Peter did this to even cast the illusion to court visitors from other monarchies that Russia was just as European as the Anglos or French. Of course Russia had no practical use for Africans on the scale of the Transatlantic slave trade much in the same way even Anglos never employed the use of black slaves to cultivate grain in what is now Canada and the Old Northwest of the U.S.
I do agree with the "one big and intriguing puzzle". I cast my opinions based on World-Systems Theory. That is why my original reply to you about Russian black slavery was that irrespective of its scale, the Anglos of the 18th-20th century were the "Romans". Empires aspiring to be regarded in the same international light as Europeans (notably the Turks and Russians) adopted the philosophy of "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". The Turks and Russians had no practical reason to import Africans, but whether it was for harems, servants, or cannon fodder in the military (these apply overwhelmingly to the Turks over the Russians) these states did it anyway. It is not an accident that both empires unraveled as monarchies in the 1910s.
No, it was Russian slaves. Peter the Great imported black slaves about a decade later in 1723 when he abolished slavery among the Slavs (Russians).
Peter's abolition of "slaves" was in the name only. The only reason why he wanted to move this particular class to a "different category" was a poll tax. I referred you to such definition as "kholop" for a reason ( there was a different word in Russia for a slave taken during the battles and a home-grown slave ( i.e. "kholop".) If you would have read the whole article, you'd understand that in Russian medieval society the life of "kholops" differed greatly; some of them learned trades, some had property, some were involved in important administrative activities at their landlord's estates, and some had nothing, being on the very bottom of the society. However the landlords were not listing their slaves ( kholops) no matter what their situation was, as subjects of poll tax, and that's what Peter wanted to change. He moved them into the category of "serfs," thus making them subjects of a poll tax. Other than that, not much really changed in their situation;
"As a whole, serfdom both came and remained in Russia much later than in other European countries. Serfdom remained a major institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great converted the household slaves into house serfs. Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679.[9][10]
Formal conversion to serf status and later ban of sale of serf without a land did not stop the trade in household slaves, this trade merely changed its name. The private owners of the serfs regarded the law of the mere formality. Instead of "sale of a peasant" the papers would advertise "servant for hire" or similar.
In fact, this trade in landless serfs regarded as a mere chattel flourished all the way up until the total abolition of serfdom in 1861, although the loose framework of Russian legal system and a lack of law enforcement meant that slave trade in some remote eastern Russian provinces survived until much later period.[citation needed]
The official estimate is that 10.5 millions of Russians were privately owned, 9.5 millions were in state ownership and another 900 thousand serfs were under Tsar's patronage (udelnye krestiane) before the Great Emancipation of 1861.
One particular source of righteous indignation in Europe was Kolokol (newspaper) published in 1857–1865) and Geneva (1865–1867). It collected too many cases of horrendous physical, emotional and sexual abuse of the serfs by the landowners."
And that's the reason why Russian upper class never had any need to import slave labor into the country - Blacks or not. They have plenty of slaves of their own origin.
Quote:
Peter was of German ethnicity.
Who told you so? Peter was of Russian ethnicity, scroll to his ancestry section)
The house of Holstein-Gottorp ( i.e. Germans) came to rule in Russia only later on in history.
Quote:
He used slave labor to build St. Petersburg as the primary goal of his reign was to create a stylized "European" empire.
No, his primary goal was not the "stylized European empire" lol - his goals were far more pragmatic - advanced fleet, army, and efficient legal institutions)))
Quote:
To your point about importing black slaves due to their exoticism, I would surmise that Peter did this to even cast the illusion to court visitors from other monarchies that Russia was just as European as the Anglos or French.
No, this would be more within the lines of Catherine the Great - she was the one preoccupied with "European image" of Russia, downright suppressing "things Russian" and advancing "things European" in the country. But then, again, her real name was Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg to begin with )))))
Quote:
Of course Russia had no practical use for Africans on the scale of the Transatlantic slave trade much in the same way even Anglos never employed the use of black slaves to cultivate grain in what is now Canada and the Old Northwest of the U.S.
Russian nobility had no practical use for Africans on any scale - big or small, for the reasons I explained above and that's why you won't see a single image of Black slaves when it comes to Russian serfdom, except for when Pushkin might be mentioned.
Quote:
I do agree with the "one big and intriguing puzzle". I cast my opinions based on World-Systems Theory. That is why my original reply to you about Russian black slavery was that irrespective of its scale, the Anglos of the 18th-20th century were the "Romans". Empires aspiring to be regarded in the same international light as Europeans (notably the Turks and Russians) adopted the philosophy of "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
Absolutely not. Russians did everything quite different comparably to Anglos - be that the concept of colonies, the serfdom, the property rights, the legal system, the institutions, the development of technology)))) If the Anglos were "the Romans" and Russians would have followed the philosophy of "when in Rome, do as Romans do," they wouldn't have ended up on the opposite side of political spectrum with the "Anglos," plunging into the "Communist" Revolution, lol.))))
And Turkey with its Islam is the whole different story all together.
This thread is about Anglo economic and political strength. Wide swaths of posts in this thread clearly had to be deleted because they went waaaaay off topic. One component that was relevant to the discussion was the use of African slavery by Anglos in North America and the Caribbean. In one post, an individual stated that African slavery went all over the world. Your response was, and I quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
P.S. Blacks were not "taken all over the world as slaves" - Russia never had them ( just an example.)
It was you and you alone that decided to insert Russians into this thread. What you are frothing about above is immaterial to this discussion. Russia did in fact have black slaves. You are making this massive case that because Russia had so few slaves in the imperial court, they didn't have any. In the year 1800, New Hampshire had 8 slaves in the entire state. The number is miniscule, New Hampshire had no need to import more slaves, and the number of slaves was down to a grand total of ONE in 1840. However, it is undeniable (regardless of the limited scope) that New Hampshire had black slaves and Anglos were responsible for transporting them there.
Accordingly, I never said that Peter the Great outlawed serfdom. He abolished slavery. Everything you say after that is immaterial. You have your doubts about the origin of the word "slavery" having some relationship to the word "slav". That is your personal issue. I've already provided a source corroborating this origin.
It doesn't matter that black slaves were imported for their exotic looks. The fact of the matter is by your own admission at some juncture they were indeed imported, thus contradicting your initial statement that "Russia NEVER had them".
You are correct, Mamluks have little to do with the initial post of this thread. You went off on a tangent about Caucasians having never been taken as slaves and Circassians. I never brought up these ethnic groups. I merely mentioned Mamluks because they became a military caste in the Muslim world and assuredly their descendants factored into Anglo "colonial" expansion into Ottoman Turkish territories and the Arab world. Because some of the Mamluks were Circassians, the hope was to tie your tangent about Transcaucasia and Russia back to a relevant discussion within this thread.
I have no issue whatsoever with anyone disagreeing with my assertions. You are insistent upon introducing completely unrelated topics to this forum and then attempt to involve me (or others) in these divergences. By quoting your Russian example I was highlighting that your "one offs" had no relevance to this thread. So by all means continue to talk about Russia and I'll await the next poster choosing to discuss Anglo hegemony.
As someone who grew up in Russia, I can attest to the fact that most of what you're saying is absolutely false.
1) Peter the Great never abolished slavery in Russia. He made it worse. He did, at some point, encourage slaves to leave their masters for resettlement in Gov't owned lands or to participate in massive construction projects, or to conscript in Army / Navy. But this was done sporadically and did not affect a very large number of people. The serfdom (different from slavery in name only) was getting worse and worse until by the late 1700 there was no difference between the way the black slaves were treated in the US or the peasant serfs were treated in Russia. Serfs could be beat to death, families could be separated and sold off, the large estate owners kept whole harems of slave girls. Of course the majority of landowners treated their serfs as valuable property, but the excesses were widespread. The biggest difference was in the way the freed slaves and their children were treated - since they were of the same race, religion and culture as their masters, they would have a much easier time blending into "polite society" as long as they had the required education / manners. A slave drafted into army, who survived long enough and was capable enough and lucky enough to get to an officer position, could even obtain the rank of a small nobility and could demand to be treated as equal by his former master. This happened very rarely. But the vast majority of Russian people were slaves.
2) There was no African slaves in any significant numbers, period. In the eyes of the ruling class, Russia was overpopulated as it was, life / labor of the Russian serf peasants was cheap. The only Africans would be the dressed up livery boys used as exotic accessory by the most high ranking nobility, usually riding on the back end of the gilded coaches, dressed up in fine uniforms with their master's coat of arms. There were very few of them in Russia, at any point in time probably less than two hundred. They were an expensive possession of the highest nobility and treated far better than most Russian serfs or even free hired servants. Using your logic, if this shows that Russia had black slaves, then African tribes had a far bigger problem with white slaves. The number of whites in captivity in Northern Africa in the XVIII century was far more than the number of black slaves in Russia. There were tens of thousands of Ukrainian, Russian, or Balakan slaves sold on African slave markets every year since at least XV century, and the practice was not curtailed until XIX century.
As to the original question. England had three things going for it. It was protected by sea. It had, over the years, developed a political system that helped to encourage commerce and development and limited the ability of kings to screw things up. The Dutch were the same way but they were not protected by the sea so they were being constantly invaded by France and Spain, this really put a damper on their development. The Poles had successfully limited the powers of the king but their parliament was unworkable so the country was being actively mismanaged. The French were a very rich and powerful country but the Kings had too much power and made stupid choices that cost France dearly. The English had a strong, successful middle class earlier than most other European countries. Finally, they seem to have been somehwat consistently smart (relative to other countries) on whom they let to run England. Again, probably has much to do with Parliament limiting the power of the kings to make stupid appointments.
About the only other country that in my view is very close to England is the Netherlands, and who knows how the Dutch history would turn if they were sitting on an island.
Yes the colonies were at some points profitable (and at some points a net drain on resources). From all the books that I read, India was by far the single most profitable British possession, while the Americas may have been too pricey in the end, which is in part why the Brits didn't try harder to hold on to the colonies. At any rate, slavery in America did profit the slaveowners, but most of this profit happened after the American independence, with invention of the cotton machine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After the construction of the "City of Bones", Peter was certainly aware of how negative as shadow he cast upon his subjects who did not share his ethnicity. He abolished slavery for his own subjects (the Slavs), not the institution itself. 
)))))
