Dear Little Ronnie,
Your concepts of accountability are ones that are pretty novel. In the
Moroccan Empire, slavery and slave trade was a norm. Muslim rulers in
Northern Africa profited from the slave trade and did not view those
enslaved as "their own people". More than that, even Islam did not
protect the enslaved:
"Despite the complaints of legal scholars like the Ahmad Baba of
Timbuktu (1556-1627) against the enslavement of Muslims, many of the
Sudanic states enslaved their captives both pagan and Muslim."
(SOURCE: "Africa And The Africans In The Age Of The Atlantic Slave
Trade", <http://history-world.org/Africa%20in%20the%20age%20of%20the%20slave%20trade.htm>).
Moreover, some Muslim leaders have justified Jihad (holy war) against
Muslims that were perceived as "heathen" (basically, Muslims are not
to wage war against another Muslim) and as the norm of the time was,
captives were enslaved. (see more in the link above).
Unfortunately, unlike what you have claimed in your comment regarding
the Moroccans, they did perceived their sub-Saharan and Sahel subjects
as "different".
First, it might be a cultural one. Unlike what you claim, both
Moroccans and Egyptians certainly adhere to the definition of an Arab:
"name originally applied to the Semitic peoples of the Arabian
Peninsula. It now refers to those persons whose primary language is
Arabic. They constitute most of the population of Algeria, Bahrain,
Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, the
West Bank, and Yemen". (Answers.com,
<http://www.answers.com/topic/arab?method=6>). Most Moroccans are not
Berber, and only a tiny part of Egypt's population could speak the
Copt language, usually as a second-language.
The difference is of course not a difference in language, but also in
"race": "While it is true that the Muslims of the Middle East took
slaves of all colors and ethnicities, they considered white slaves
more valuable than black ones and developed racist attitudes toward
the darker skinned people.
Even the famous Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun, expressed racist
attitudes toward black Africans: ?The only people who accept slavery
are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and their
proximity to the animal stage,? Khaldun wrote. Another Arab writer, of
the 14th Century, asked: ?Is there anything more vile than black
slaves, of less good and more evil than they?? " (SOURCE: Susan
Stephan, "Two Views of The History of Islamic Slavery in Africa",
Faith Freedom, <http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SStephan/islamic_slavery.htm>).
Religious difference also comes to mind, as a very important factor.
Those who were enslaved were usually - though not always - "heathens",
that is, believers in animistic belief systems. Non-Muslims, in
general, were not equal members of Muslim societies, and in case of
"infidels" and "pagans", they did not even receive the protection that
"people of the book" (Christians and Jews) deserved: they were to
choose between Islam and the sword.
And naturally, above all, the economic factor comes to mind. The
Moroccan empire profited from the slave trade: from the slave routes
passing through (and ending in Marrakech), to other, indirect, gains:
originally, the areas of the Sahel and Sub-Saharan africa were
conquested because of gold and salt mines that existed there. In
total, Murray Gordon estimated (1989) that some 11 million
Sahel/Sub-Saharan Africans were enslaved by North African Arabs
(Stephan, ibid); Segal has a much higher estimation, that of 30
million (SOURCE: "The Scourge of Slavery",
<http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2004-4-TheScourgeofSlavery.htm>).
Baepler (1999) brought narratives of Europeans and Americans, who have
been enslaved in Northern Africa, and estimates that there were scores
of those slaves. (Stephan, ibid).
One of the reasons for the 1787 treaty was again, economic:
"The Sultan's overture was part of a new policy he was implementing as
a result of his recognition of the need to establish peaceful
relations with the Christian powers and his desire to establish trade
as a basic source of revenue. Faced with serious economic and
political difficulties, he was searching for a new method of governing
which required changes in his economy. Instead of relying on a
standing professional army to collect taxes and enforce his authority,
he wanted to establish state-controlled maritime trade as a new, more
reliable, and regular source of income which would free him from
dependency on the services of the standing army. The opening of his
ports to America and other states was part of that new policy.
The Sultan issued a declaration on December 20, 1777, announcing that
all vessels sailing under the American flag could freely enter
Moroccan ports. The Sultan stated that orders had been given to his
corsairs to let the ship ""des Americains"" and those of other
European states with which Morocco had no treaties-Russia Malta,
Sardinia, Prussia, Naples, Hungary, Leghorn, Genoa, and Germany-pass
freely into Moroccan ports. There they could ""take refreshments"" and
provisions and enjoy the same privileges as other nations that had
treaties with Morocco. This action, under the diplomatic practice of
Morocco at the end of the 18th century, put the United States on an
equal footing with all other nations with which the Sultan had
treaties. By issuing this declaration, Morocco became one of the first
states to acknowledge publicly the independence of the American
Republic."
(SOURCE: Andalous.com, <http://www.andalous.com/USAMorocco.asp>).
This doesn't imply that slavery was prohibited in Morocco. Lewis (1994) writes:
"?In 1842 the British Consul General in Morocco, as part of his
government's worldwide endeavor to bring about the abolition of
slavery or at least the curtailment of the slave trade, made
representations to the sultan of that country asking him what
measures, if any, he had taken to accomplish this desirable objective.
The sultan replied, in a letter expressing evident astonishment, that
?the traffic in slaves is a matter on which all sects and nations have
agreed from the time of the sons of Adam . . . up to this day.? The
sultan continued that he was ?not aware of its being prohibited by the
laws of any sect, and no one need ask this question, the same being
manifest to both high and low and requires no more demonstration than
the light of day.?"
(SOURCE: John Stringer, "Poems of the Week: The Abolition of Slavery",
<http://www.themediadrome.com/content/articles/words_articles/poems_abolition_slavery.htm>).
Another reason was internal: to maintain, or achieve, an internal
stability, which was a problem in Morocco: "Mawlay Muhammad ibn
'Abdulla (r. 1757-90) consolidated his power by overcoming Wadaya
resentment of the Berbers at Fez in 1760, and during his reign he had
to suppress Sanhaja revolts from the mountains. He made a trade treaty
with Marseilles in 1767 and founded the port of Mogador. Muhammad
ordered a thousand 'Abid transferred from Miknasa to Tangier in 1775.
When they refused, he dispersed them to several cities, causing
turmoil that lasted seven years. This lack of security and a plague
reduced the population of Morocco from five million to three million.
The Sultan reduced taxes, imported grain without a profit, gave bread
to the poor, provided money to tribal chiefs, and punished the
rebellious 'Abid. Later he justified extra taxes to pay the army in
order to keep the peace. He followed Maliki rituals but adopted
Wahhabi beliefs, even destroying books." (SOURCE: Africa and Slavery,
Morocco, <http://www.san.beck.org/1-13-Africa1500-1800.html#5>).
As for the Moors Sundry Act, and other referrences to "Moors" in
American culture after (and before) this treaty, it is because of the
cultural connotations of the term "Moor" at that time. The term
"Moroccan", and certainly not "citizen of Morocco", did not exist at
that time: these are modern terms. You can read more about what a
"Moor" means here:
Wikipedia, Moors (Meaning), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_(meaning)>.
According to the law: "Moors Sundry Act passed by South Carolina
legislature, granting special status to the subjects of Sultan of
Morocco. It recognized Moors as "white" people with Jury duty as a
privilege. Moors were not to be subjected to laws governing Blacks and
slaves."
So, the reason that this term was used, was to distinguish what was
perceived as a "Moor" (given specific cultural denotions) from a
"Negro".
I hope this answers your question. Please contact me if you need any
clarification on this answer before you rate it. |
Clarification of Answer by
politicalguru-ga
on
29 Jun 2005 11:39 PDT
Well Little Ronnie,
You've certainly risen many new questions.
Let me refer to them:
"Definition of a Moor as a Moroccan" - You are correct in your claim
that the term has existed before this denotion, but this still
wouldn't change the fact that this was the way that Moroccans were
defined by Europeans at that time. Again, terms such as "Morocco" are
part of nation-state notions, and do not belong to the 18th century.
In Arabic, by the way, it is not called "Morocco" at all. It is called
- to this day - "Al Mamlakah al Maghribiyah " (The Western Kingdom,
Maghreb means "Western" in Arabic).
Incentive and motivation on behalf of Morocco - rightly so, this also
seems puzzling: why would an established country recognise the 13
colonies in the other end of the world, when no one else had? However,
you have to remember that neither the colonies nor Morocco conducted
their business in a vacuum. Maybe I wasn't so clear on the other
external pressures on Morocco: European powers in the Mediterranean
and, of course, the superpower of the Muslim world (at that time), the
Ottoman Empire. Both pressured Morocco, so perhaps it wasn't so
surprising that the Sultan has sought allies in the most unexpected
corners.
Here is a little more interesting information about the Sundry Moors:
Moorunity
<http://moorunity.ghostchild.com/index.php?topic=29.new>
The petition gives us some information on the consequences, under
which these Moroccan subjects have been captured:
"your Petitioners some years past had the misfortune while fighting in
the defence of their Country, to be captured with their wives and made
prisoners of War by one of the Kings of Africa. That a certain Captain
Clark had them delivered to him on a promise that they should be
redeemed by the Emperor of Morocco?s Ambassador then residing in
England, in order to have them returned to their own Country: Instead
of which he brought them to this State, and sold them for slaves"
(ibid).
This might also explain why there was an extra-concern in this case,
that hasn't been shown in other cases.
As for your statement that "This also raises an intriging concept that
"white" does not mean the color of your skin. It obviously gave you
rights as a human citizen. Something that a freed slave, negro or
black could never have even to this day."
I really recommend an interesting fiction book that empahsise your point further:
The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson by Mark Twain
Free copy as an etext: University of Virginia
<http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=Twa2Pud&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed>
"Slavery in Islamic countries were a means for poor destitute people
to get back on there feet and make a new life for themselves."
This is unfortunately not true at all. It is true that the nature of
slavery is totally different: slavery in the European colonies in
America was mass-organised, plantation slavery. However, most slaves
in Muslim countries, were captives, usually from conquests, and not
people who chose to enslave themselves. Children have been kidnapped
to serve as eunuchs; and older ones, teenagers, or young adults, as
soldiers. It is, however, probable, that the Sultan was not aware of
the conditions of slaves in the United States.
"I know this is not the case so I wondered how the first nation to
reconize the 13 colonies as a nation in its own right would be an
african nation and would allow it's own people to be mistreated and
brutalized right under its nose?".
Again, obviously, the Maghreb Kingdom did not view itself as "African"
but as an Islamic one. They did not identify themselves with
non-Muslims in sub-Saharan africa and were also culturally different.
Those slaves who were, apparently, "Moroccan" subjects, were captured
(one can only assume, in war or similar circumstances) by another
kingdom, which explains any effort to free them, but to be indifferent
to the fate of others. Since there were strong African kingdoms (as
you say yourself), it is pretty clear that someone (or, in fact, moer
than one "someone") in Africa profited in the way and viewed those who
were enslaved as inhuman in any case, and an "African Unity" did not
exist.
Two interesting, though off-topic, issues that I recommend that you'll
read about (regarding the profit of some Africans from the slave
trade):
- The reaction of the locals in Liberia to the "Americans", the
returning freed slaves (and vice versa).
- The sad history of the "Gold Coast" (*Ghana*) during the slave-trade period.
|
