The white slavery that pogre discourse ignores
The history of slavery is not a European monopoly: from the Slavs kidnapped by Vikings and Ottomans to the Christian children turned into Janissaries, human trafficking has been a constant worldwide. Yet contemporary discourse, especially from movements like Black Lives Matter or critical race theory, associates slavery almost exclusively with European colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade. This perspective, described as "selective" by numerous analysts, omits centuries of slavery practiced by Arab, Turkish, African and Asian cultures, and creates a narrative of historical guilt aimed solely at white Westerners.
The origin of the bias: Saqaliba and the Slavic slave trade
The word "slave" comes from "Slav", in reference to the mass capture of Slavic peoples during the Early Middle Ages. Vikings and Arab merchants trafficked millions of Slavs, many of them sold in the markets of Constantinople and Baghdad. Wikipedia documents under "Saqaliba" and "Prague slave trade" how this trade route outlasted, and sometimes outstripped in volume, the Atlantic slave trade. Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire forcibly recruited Christian children for its elite corps (the Janissaries) and its harem, a practice that lasted until the 17th century. These facts are rarely mentioned in today's debates about slavery and privilege.
The original sin of white identity
The mental association between slavery and white people is cemented by the concept of "white privilege" popularized in American academia. In 2016, Hillary Clinton said that "white people need to recognize their privilege and practice humility", a statement that ignores the fact that most white Americans descend from immigrants who arrived after the abolition of slavery or, like the Irish and the Poles, were themselves victims of discrimination and servitude. The activist and professor David Theo Goldberg, cited in the debate, notes that "All Lives Matter" reflects resistance to this narrative of collective guilt.
Political tool or settling of scores
Critics of proge discourse argue that singling out one specific ethnic group as solely responsible for slavery is a strategy of political manipulation: it creates an internal enemy and diverts attention from other forms of contemporary oppression. The phrase "original sin" recurs throughout the analysis: the aim is to instill a sense of guilt in the native population in order to weaken its cohesion and ease the acceptance of migration or redistribution policies.
What no mainstream analysis explains is why, despite the historical evidence of massive non-European slavery, the public narrative insists on pointing in only one direction. The answer may lie not in history, but in the political usefulness of the present.
Related discussions in the forum