groups

How many Europeans did the Romans enslave?

Yichel, they would still have been slaves, just as the Greeks had been to the Romans.....

romans enslaved many europeans.

What Europeans are you referring to, yichel?

West Europeans?
East Europeans?
Mediterranean Europeans?
Benalux Europeans?

The human color palette in Europe is pretty broad.

A more interesting question could be: What might have happened if Europeans were the same color as Africans?

##

Europeans enslaved Europeans of the same color, and Egyptians and other Africans of darker colors...so what difference does color make or religion for that matter?

ask the question if europeans were the same color as africans/ maybe one needs to go back a step to ask what triggeed slavery in cultures? My hunch is color does not matter economics and power usually wins out in my belief,

Let me say this again and for the last time: AT NO TIME IN KNOWN HUMAN HISTORY WAS SKIN COLOR EVER NECESSARY FOR THE CONDITION OF SLAVERY EXCEPT ..... EXCEPT (drum roll, please) IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

ONLY .... ONLY in the United States of America did SKIN COLOR become synonymous with the condition of slavery. In other words, in the USA , if you were black AND A RESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY, you were automatically a slave. It didn't matter what kind of "paper work" you may have had, you still were a slave if you were dark-skinned and a resident. You were born into slavery and there was no way you could get out of it except to escape or die.

Before 1863 (the Emancipation Proclamation) "free Black person" in the USA was an oxymoron .

The infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857 handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court essentially codified the Southern doctrine of "white supremacy" by upholding as law that a Black person was NOT a person like a white person and therefore not entitled to "equal protection under the Constitution which held that all men are created equal." This meant that ANY Black person in the United States, regardless of being freed by his slave master, could be returned to slavery BECAUSE he is black and therefore not entitled to legal protection.

This decision upheld the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (enacted by Congress) which made it illegal to harbor a slave and NOT return him to his slave master. Hence the famous "Underground Railroad" that helped runaway slaves to points far west and to Canada. It was AGAINST THE LAW (and extremely dangerous) to harbor or help a runaway slave so the system to help runaway slaves had to be "underground."

The Dred Scott decision is considered by Constitutional scholars and historians to be one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Skin color and slavery ONLY mattered in the context of American slavery.
This connection between skin color and slavery NEVER occurred anyplace else in the world except in the United States of America.

This discussion of slavery and skin color WITHOUT INCLUDING the USA is senseless and useless. It simply wasn't an issue anyplace else in the world.

You raised a "non-existent" and "non-sensical" question, yichel.
It doesn't make sense.
It's sorta' like asking "if there was no water, would there be fish?"

##

Quippian , your statement that that the USA was the only place where skin color was a condition for slavery is incorrect . The same condition prevailed throughout the Caribbean Islands and in Brazil , and the reason was not so much one of picking on blacks as it was a recognition of the simple fact that there were NO INDIGENOUS BLACKS in any of those places , nor any blacks who migrated there on their own as free men . Every black in those places , or their ancestors ,had been brought there specifically as a slave .

So much for research ability...

Free blacks in America owned slaves; some slaves were white. view link

quippan are you saying that before 1876 there were no free black men at all in America?