Suchergebnisse

Die "Slaven" begegnen in mittelalterlichen Quellen wie in der modernen Mediävistik in vielfältiger Weise. Was aber meinten die mittelalterlichen Zeitgenossen, wenn Sie von "Slaven" oder "Slavenland" schrieben und was kann die Mediävistik heute mit diesen Begriffen sinnvoll bezeichnen? In welchem Verhältnis stehen die im 6. Jahrhundert einsetzenden, von der Wissenschaft seit dem 18. Jahrhundert verfeinerten Konstruktionen "slavischer" Identitäten zu den mittelalterlichen Wirklichkeiten? Die Studie fragt danach, ob bzw. inwieweit der in byzantinischen, arabischen und lateinischen Quellen begegnende Begriff "Slaven" tatsächlich auf eine reale Einheit, ein gemeinschaftliches Identitätsbewusstsein verwies oder nicht auch schon im Mittelalter – wie im 18.-20. Jahrhundert – vor allem ein Instrument bestimmter politisch-ideologischer Programme war.

"Slaves and Slave Agency in the Ottoman Empire offers a new contribution to slavery studies relating to the Ottoman Empire. Given the fact that the classical binary of 'slavery' and 'freedom' derives from the transatlantic experience, this volume presents an alternative approach by examining the strong asymmetric relationships of dependency documented in the Ottoman Empire. A closer look at the Ottoman social order discloses manifold and ambiguous conditions involving enslavement practices, rather than a single universal pattern. The authors examine various forms of enslavement and dependency with a particular focus on agency, i. e. the room for maneuver, which the enslaved could secure for themselves, or else the available options for action in situations of extreme individual or group dependencies"--Back cover

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction -- Chapter 1. Genesis -- Chapter 2. Servants of the City -- Chapter 3. Strange Slaves -- Chapter 4. The Democratic Order of Knowledge -- Chapter 5. The Mysteries of the Greek State -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Acknowledgments -- Index

Responsible societies reckon with the pernicious and ugly chapters in their histories. Wherever we look, there exist ever-present reminders of how we failed as a society in permitting the enslavement of millions of black men, women, and children during the first century of this nation's history. No corner of society remains unstained. As such, it is incumbent on institutions to confront their involvement in this horrific past to fully comprehend the kaleidoscopic nature of institutional complicity in legitimating and entrenching slavery. Only by doing so can we properly continue the march of progress, finding ways to improve society, not letting the errors of our past define us, yet at the same time never forgetting them. This Article represents a contribution toward this progress, by telling what has been, until now, an untold story about institutional complicity in antebellum slavery-that is, the story of how the federal government in the 1840s became the owner and seller of hundreds, if not thousands, of slaves belonging to financially distressed slaveowners who sought forgiveness of debt through the federal bankruptcy process. Relying on archival court records that have not been systematically analyzed by any published scholarship, this Article recounts how the Bankruptcy Act of 1841 and the domestic slave trade inevitably collided to create the bankruptcy slave trade, focusing on a case study of the Eastern District of Louisiana, home to New Orleans, which was antebellum America's largest slave market. Knowing the story of the black men, women, and children who found themselves subjected to sale through the federal bankruptcy process is a crucial step toward recognizing how yet another aspect of our legal system-one that has brought in its modern incarnation financial relief to millions upon millions of debtors-had deep roots in antebellum slavery.