Slavery

[sackett]

Of course, there's always the question of what actually constitutes slavery....

Check. Who needs chains when you've got wages?

 

[Mark]

With the MASSIVE transfer of wealth going on in this country, we are well on our way. And modern technology will probably make revolution impossible when it does happen.

And since most people believe whatever they see on TV, our new corporate masters will convince most of us that we like it.

Great. Now I'm depressed.

 

[Gurdur]

I was not aware of that. Links?

look up History Of Slavery on Wikipedia and go from there.

The only point there is that it is not a universally understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil" as was proposed in another thread.

Murder is not universally understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
People still murder.
So the big what?
NOTHING is or ever was understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
This point has been made a large number of times. You should tackle it.

As for your claim about what was being claimed, do you have an actual link to the post and claim in question? Was such an actual claim made? By whom? Quote? Link? I'm just checking in case anything was misunderstood.

Why isn't it?

Why should it be?

 

[Amapola]

look up History Of Slavery on Wikipedia and go from there.


Murder is not universally understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
People still murder.
So the big what?
NOTHING is or ever was understood to be an unquestionably "absolute evil".
This point has been made a large number of times. You should tackle it.

As for your claim about what was being claimed, do you have an actual link to the post and claim in question? Was such an actual claim made? By whom? Quote? Link? I'm just checking in case anything was misunderstood.


Why should it be?

Gurdur, this was sparked by this thread where DrBuzz0 was (apparently) arguing that some people should be personally attacked and driven off for the views they hold - such as that slavery is OK. (I may have DrBuzz0's point of view wrong here. It was really hard to make out exactly what he was trying to say. That's just what it *seems* he was saying, if I got it wrong, I apologize.)

I doubt Piscivore actually believes slavery is OK. I think he is more trying to point out that the views people have towards slavery have not always been universally the same as the views we currently hold in our society.

 

[scratchy]

If slavery is wrong, where is the line drawn?

I find that line to be quite obvious. If you can stand up and leave its not slavery. That doesnt mean anything else goes. Bad treatment of labor is still bad, and wrong. But as long as you are free to leave its not slavery. There is still too much real slavery in the world to make that term vacant for the various other forms of bad labor treatment one wishes to condemn.

 

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, this was sparked by this thread where DrBuzz0

Ah, a great many thanks, Amapola! That clears up another question I had too. Very kind of you to give me the info.

was (apparently) arguing that some people should be personally attacked and driven off for the views they hold - such as that slavery is OK. (I may have DrBuzz0's point of view wrong here. It was really hard to make out exactly what he was trying to say. That's just what it *seems* he was saying, if I got it wrong, I apologize.)

Um, yes, well. DrBuzz0. Um. Well, I hate to be harsh, but I have zero remit to defend any such stance. I prefer a bit more logic; murder, as I pointed out, is still not universally accepted as a no-no, so why should slavery?

You will always have people in favour of either murder or slavery; that, as far as I am concerned, is meaningless. Nor does it make murder or slavery OK.

Besides which, I like free will, and people deciding for themselves. So people actually behaving individually on ethical matters is something I approve of. It's a small price to pay if they decide the wrong way; the main thing is, we all still have that individual power of decision.

I doubt Piscivore actually believes slavery is OK. I think he is more trying to point out that the views people have towards slavery have not always been universally the same as the views we currently hold in our society.

My reaction here is heightened because someone else tried a variant of that position on yet a totally different slavery thread (actually an American Civil War thread); the poster in question is arguing, in essence, that because slavery was not "universally" condemned in 1862, it is somehow magically unfair to criticise the CSA for bringing itself into existence to protect its slavery institution.

The poster in question characterizes it as imposing 2007 morality on 1862. Needless to say, it's merely self-serving, and completely ignores that there was much abolitionist feeling among many at the time.

So I am feeling somewhat short-tempered with such arguments; they're specious, and appeal to some kind of absolute that does not exist and will never exist, and therefore constitute empty evasion.

 

[Piscivore]

Gurdur, this was sparked by this thread where DrBuzz0 was (apparently) arguing that some people should be personally attacked and driven off for the views they hold - such as that slavery is OK. (I may have DrBuzz0's point of view wrong here. It was really hard to make out exactly what he was trying to say. That's just what it *seems* he was saying, if I got it wrong, I apologize.)

Further, I understood Dr. B to mean that since slavery was so absolutely, inocntravertably wrong that people should be shunned and mocked for even discussing the possibility that it might not be.

Whatever Dr. B's issue is- and I hope he gets over it soon- I didn't think he was in any mood to consider he might be wrong, but there are others that have their own sacred cows. I don't think there should be any opinion that's off limits, And I wanted this thread to be an example.

I doubt Piscivore actually believes slavery is OK. I think he is more trying to point out that the views people have towards slavery have not always been universally the same as the views we currently hold in our society.

One of the things running through my mind right now is that "Slavery" is a pretty broad term, and we may be throwing something out with that bathwater we might not want to.

I'm still trying to render these thoughts in a coherent manner, I'll explain more later.

I find that line to be quite obvious. If you can stand up and leave its not slavery.

Where does that leave prisoners? They are not free to leave, if we make them work for their keep does this make them slaves?

My reaction here is heightened because someone else tried a variant of that position on yet a totally different slavery thread (actually an American Civil War thread); the poster in question is arguing, in essence, that because slavery was not "universally" condemned in 1862, it is somehow magically unfair to criticise the CSA for bringing itself into existence to protect its slavery institution.

I saw that, and it is the reason I chose "Slavery" over one of his other "absolutes", like eugenics.

 

[slingblade]

Well, I have heard that mandating that welfare recipients (those who are capable of working) actually work for their benefits amounts to slavery.

That's an argument that I don't buy.

Yes, to continue the can o' worms...

I don't think that amounts to slavery, either.

But I do think "wage slavery" exists, although the term is very misleading and emotive. If it's slavery, it's a milder form than others.

Put it this way: the ones who benefit from low-income workers don't often see any problems, and the ones who are low-income workers see little but problems. I've worked at many, many jobs in my life in which I didn't earn enough to purchase what I was producing.

 

[scratchy]

Where does that leave prisoners? They are not free to leave, if we make them work for their keep does this make them slaves?

Well, if they are held as prisoners with no other reason than to make them work, that would make them slaves. But the prisoners you are talking about are of course convicts. They have chosen their destiny when they committed the crime, and most of them will eventually be free. We allready have a better fitting term than slaves: convicts.

A better question about the where the line goes might be about drafted military. They are not free to leave, and are held for no other reason than to make them do military service, in times of war it may be for a time that is not specified. I still wouldnt consider them slaves, though, but they might fit he term better than convicts.

 

[luchog]

A better question about the where the line goes might be about drafted military. They are not free to leave, and are held for no other reason than to make them do military service, in times of war it may be for a time that is not specified. I still wouldnt consider them slaves, though, but they might fit he term better than convicts.

It also depends on the form of conscription. Press-gang-style or other forcible conscription would generally fit the defintion of slavery. A US-style draft, with its various means of avoiding compulsory service (conscientious objector, educational deferrment, and various health, disability, and religious exemptions) would not necessarily be considered slavery.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

We've most of us been taught that, but it seems to me that this whole idea that "slavery is wrong" is a pretty recent development when considered against the scope of human history. And it isn't even universal- slavery still exists today, in all its forms. People have to participate in it, condone it, for it to still exist.

It further seems that would be a tremendous advantage to any small group's genetic survivability. The group gets to add the slave's manhours to its production without costing the group a the same resource share as another full member or competition for females.

Further, "slavery"- i.e. compulsory employment- seems like a viable way to ameliorate the cost of non-productive members of society- recidivistic prisoners, drug addicts, and the chronically un- or underemployed.

I'd like to hear some other ideas.

There is a difference between saying that "slavery" is justified as a form of punishment or for some sort of debt repayment by agreement vrs. general decision that slavery is acceptable, as a wholesale. In the former cases it is in some way based on the decisions or actions of those who are found in the situation. Just as a removal of liberty is the result of a criminal conviction.

I'm not going to say whether compulsory work is somehow justified as punishment, but that is a separate issue.

It is not simply compensatory employment, but rather is a complete removal of rights and property. It does not simply say "You must work." But takes any right to choice in the manner and nature of life. You are no longer able to decide anything for yourself and are literally owned by another.

This is, unfortionately, not uncommon throughout human history. In the Americas it was those from Africa. In the US, it was only legal to enslave Africans of those descended from them, even if part white. There was clearly a line drawn to differentiate the two. Even American Indians, who were certainly given the most raw deal you can think of were not enslaved... at least not after the formation of the United States. (Perhaps they did not look quite different enough)

In Roman times and before it was often those from other cultures, such as those captured in battle who became slaves (in addition to criminals - or possibly accused criminals). Although Rome did have a rather uniquely common system of slavery.

In general though, there's one unifying thing that, at least I, can see in slavery throughout the ages. It's a differentiation of "them" and "us" by such things as skin color, manner of speaking and so on. Generally there is some comparison to animals. IE: "We can own them. Sure it would be wrong if they were like us, but they're not. They're not as smart. They're not as capable. They are like animals."

This may be why blacks were portrayed as almost ape-like. It again, takes away the idea of equality and equates certain groups to the status of animals.

Of course, it would not be unexpected in an Islamic society either. In that case, it may be okay to enslave foreigners or women because they are "not like us" according to the Koran.


While it now seems intuitive and relatively a no-brainer (well, except to some on this forum apparently) that slavery of groups is not justified, it is disturbing and somewhat perplexing that it would have commonly be thought otherwise.

I suppose the only real explanation I can come up with for that reverts to the "not like us" mentality. Hopefully, in a society where people of different backgrounds can become more familiar with each other this will become less of a danger.


Of course, if the day comes when people are not judged "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Well... that might be a BIG problem for some people I know... given their character... or lack thereof.

 

[Amapola]

....snip......

In general though, there's one unifying thing that, at least I, can see in slavery throughout the ages. It's a differentiation of "them" and "us" by such things as skin color, manner of speaking and so on. Generally there is some comparison to animals. IE: "We can own them. Sure it would be wrong if they were like us, but they're not. They're not as smart. They're not as capable. They are like animals."

......snip.......

Interesting, but this is often what is done in war. My FIL was in many of the major battles in the Pacific and says how they were "trained" to hate the Japanese. Well, he was a machine gunner in the Marines, and his job was to shoot and kill people. They happened to be Japanese, but he had been taught that they did not 'count' somehow, that it was OK to kill them.

One difference between war and slaves, though - in war you just kill them (or put them in prison) but in slavery, there they are - walking among you. You have to be careful they don't become aware of how many "they" are compared to "you". Otherwise you could have a successful revolt on your hands.

It's odd to me, because I was not raised that way, but to many people in the world there are different "classes" of people. Some are just "naturally" more important or somehow better. I don't see things that way, but I know that in many societies that is the reality of how people see things.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Interesting, but this is often what is done in war. My FIL was in many of the major battles in the Pacific and says how they were "trained" to hate the Japanese. Well, he was a machine gunner in the Marines, and his job was to shoot and kill people. They happened to be Japanese, but he had been taught that they did not 'count' somehow, that it was OK to kill them.

One difference between war and slaves, though - in war you just kill them (or put them in prison) but in slavery, there they are - walking among you. You have to be careful they don't become aware of how many "they" are compared to "you". Otherwise you could have a successful revolt on your hands.

It's odd to me, because I was not raised that way, but to many people in the world there are different "classes" of people. Some are just "naturally" more important or somehow better. I don't see things that way, but I know that in many societies that is the reality of how people see things.

I think that is very true. There needs to be an "Us and them" sort of mentality.

It's obvious to most that slavery is just wrong, if you put yourself in the situation. The idea that it could be done to *you* or those *like you* is intuitively injust.

Hence there needs to be a message: These people are not like you. Not like your family. Not even really people. They are like animals or like something else. Therefore it is not the same.

One might say that this sort of thing is a "necessary evil" in war. If you need to oppose an invading force or win a battle for an important cause, you have to oversimplify, because, to put it bluntly: You just can't have your marines trying to take islands in the pacific while they grapple with the internal emotional issues of taking the life of another. But it definitely is a slippery slope.

It seems like it is almost human nature to establish an additude that separates groups into classes, and thereby justifies their treatment. In some cases it is very explicit and formal.

In India it was the Caste system and in Europe there was the class system of royalty, high nobelity, lower nobelity and then: Everyone else. (who didn't matter). In Japan and China similar class systems developed. And often one could see very ridged boundaries. The lowers could not even speak to the highers: It was forbidden.

My best guess is that this rigity developed simply because any allowing of intermingling will cause a breakdown in the system. Once one an have contact with the "untouchables" it becomes apparent that they are individuals and are capable of the same sorts of things anyone else is. Hence the stigma.

If one looks at, for example, the United States, slavery really began to falter once some of this began to break down. The notion that blacks were so different and inferior and not capable of handing themselves became very difficult to maintain once you had free blacks running around and books being written about life of slaves, there really started to be a fragmentation of the country.

In the south, where cultural separations were maintained more strongly things were held out a bit more than in areas where there were populations of freed Africans and where black soldiers served and such. But even in the South, it began to eat away at the social fabric.

Despite the US Civil War not being about state succession, one could make a good case that it was caused by the unrest and turmoil caused by those who wanted to keep an institution that was becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Separating from the areas where freed blacks were and books of the character of slaves were published offered a possible means of trying to maintain this.


Throughout history I think one can find parallels to this. You simply cannot allow people to come to the realization that those in the enslaved "classes" are basically individuals or the immorality of the system becomes all to obvious. For the Nazi's the Jews were "Not German" and "Not us. Not like you," and they were compared to rats or a plague. In South Africa, Apartheid(sp?) was very strictly enforced as a policy.


Hence: I tend to think that major discrimination and enslavement *IS* entirely, intuitively and obviously wrong. And the only way around it is the maintenance of the illusion that they are "Not us and not like us."

If you begin to judge the individual, based on his or her words, actions and character; you can no longer simply label them based on their ethnic or social group. And the system breaks down.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Interesting, but this is often what is done in war. My FIL was in many of the major battles in the Pacific and says how they were "trained" to hate the Japanese. Well, he was a machine gunner in the Marines, and his job was to shoot and kill people. They happened to be Japanese, but he had been taught that they did not 'count' somehow, that it was OK to kill them.

Perhaps it is possible that the reason this (somewhat necessary evil oversimplification of war) was relatively quick to die out and that Japan would become an ally of the US; and that by the 1950's even words like "jap" were becoming taboo is not so surprising.

After the war with Japan, the United States spent a great deal of money and man hours toward the rebuilding of the nation of Japan. There were many troops who spent time in Japan doing recovery work. There was much cultural exchange. This is, at least in part, why the Japanese have come to love baseball and why Americans love Susi. The one-on-one exchange is more powerful than the stereotypes which created a single "group" of the Japanese.

The ironic thing being that what really caused this is not that the United States wanted to rebuild Japan out of the goodness and generosity of its heart. Had things been stable in the area, the US may very well have left those "damn dirty Japs to clean it up themselves." But that was not an option because Stalin's Soviet Union was an increasing concern. And a nation like Japan was too important to leave. Had such aid and exchange not occurred, it is likely that the USSR would have offered it instead, wanting to gain their own foothold in the region.

But: Because of this exchange and the breaking down of the group mentality, US troops and Japanese would serve and fight side by side less than a decade later in Korea.

 

[Paulhoff]

The bible has nothing against slavery, I is quess it is all right then.

Paul



Well don't they say that America's laws are built on the bible.

 

[bug_girl]

Actually, you can find quite a bit of bible quoting in the literature of the civil war. (Or, as I was taught to call it in school, "The war of Northern Aggression.")

They also used a lot of natural fallacy arguments. ("ants take slaves, ergo, it's natural.")

There's an awesome paper around somewhere that examines the way in which other groups are dehumanized by comparison to insects. I'll have to look that up again.

 

[DingoBingo]

If you think slavery is acceptable, then you wouldn't mind being a slave?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Surely this debate hinges on the definition of "wrong".

Moral wrongs have a largely arbitrary element.

Economic wrongs are easier to spot. Slavery seriously skews a labour market.

 

[DingoBingo]

Moral wrongs have a largely arbitrary element.

So I guess you wouldn't mind being a slave?

 

[Soapy Sam]

So I guess you wouldn't mind being a slave?

I wonder what makes you guess that?

Are you saying all slave owners throughout history were or are identically immoral?

Would you consider Jefferson less / more / identically immoral to Julius Caesar? How about a plantation owner of the 1850s? No difference at all?

Until my lifetime, it was both immoral and illegal for two consenting men to commit buggery in my country. You feel there is no arbitrary element in this? All morals are absolutes? Which do your absolute moral instincts tell you is the correct stance?