different slavetrade economies is whether we're identifying the right people. (Not directly related to what you've said here, but I guess inspired by it)

So, for example, I've seen some interesting debate about whether it's more accurate to use the term Trans-Saharan Slavetrade v. Muslim Slavetrade when referring to the trafficking and enslavement across North Africa. I guess the role of Arabs is implied if using the term Trans-Saharan (depending on the time period)... but I also think it fails to address regimes that evolved independent of Arab groups or the Sahara desert, like the enslavement of sub-saharan groups by Hausas and Fulanis/Sokoto Caliphate (who are both Black African and enslavers who only differed from their captives by religion and ethnicity).

I think the term Muslim Slavetrade is broader and more inclusive of trafficking done by a variety of racial and ethnic groups... from the Hausa Kingdoms, to Fulani/Sokoto Caliphate, to both the Berber/North African and Eurasian theaters of the Ottoman Empire, and of course Omanis and other Arab traffickers who targeted the East African Indian Ocean coast. But I've also seen the argument that the term Muslim Slavetrade *shouldn't* be used because Islam wasn't the *primary reason* Muslim groups were enslaving non-Muslims (which I'm not sure I agree with... because even if there's never been a specific hadith, and Quranic instruction to enslave is subject to interpretation (at first glance, it at minimum fails to condemn and makes plenty references just like the Bible eg. https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/slavery.html), throughout history non-muslims have always been the target or could at least avoid enslavement by converting. So it definitely still played a significant role).

But even with those two options, neither the Trans-Saharan slavetrade or Muslim slavetrade labels can accurately describe more nuanced trade dynamics such as in the Red Sea slavetrade economy... where Ethiopian and Egyptian traders weren't Muslim (well, in the case of Egypt I guess not until after the muslim conquest/Caliphates, Ottoman era, etc), and trafficking of Nilotic African groups was not Trans-Saharan. Since they were also selling to Arab groups, I suppose you could group these activities under Arab slave trade... but that kind of glosses over the rampant enslavement that took place in those countries too plus you run into similar issues that the Trans-Saharan label causes.

The reason I care is I'm interested in understanding the racial dynamics of slavery as far back as antiquity and ancient times, and by extension (or process of elimination lol) the geneology of all this racial superiority shit. If it's even possible. I definitely have a lot more to learn/understand, and it's just hobby reading of course, but so far it at least seems clear that the greco-roman social order (and more specifically Roman Empire) birthed the Berber/Barbary/Ottoman Empire, Trans-Saharan, and Trans-Atlantic slavetrade economies as well as their industrialized, imperialist, patriarchal, and racist attributes. But there's records of enslavement as far back as the Kingdom of Babylon in Mesopotamia (eg. in their Code of Hammurabi) and elsewhere in the fertile crescent (eg. Canaanites enslaved by the Israelites/Jews i.e. the inspiration behind all that Curse of Ham crap from the Bible (if one believes some of it to be true), but also interesting since the Israelites/Jews were themselves enslaved by Egypt), and archaeological evidence points towards trafficking of Nilotic African groups in the Red Sea slavetrade economy as early as 2900BC (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01440399908575286).

If even these most ancient regimes, which predated Islam and Christianity, display this trend of enslaving darker-skinned people (incl. Black African, whenever they could it seems), then I think I might start to look at anti-black racism as the origin of racial superiority sentiment (and slavery as well) moreso than white supremacy... although the two are hardly mutually exclusive.



>
>The Arab Slave trade of both whites and blacks is
>something that never gets talked about , but should. They were
>africa’s first enslavers, and they enslaved millions of
>Caucasians from European countries for 7 centuries!
>
>So you can say the Arabs started all that shit, the market,
>monetary value , in and out of Africa and in and out of
>Europe....and the Europeans expanded off it.
>