Grand Unified Slavery Thread

[TerrorDæmonum]

For the purposes of all discussions of historical slavery, including very particular forms and issues, this thread is hereby made.

In 350 BC, the Philosopher wrote:

He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female.

And here is the philosophical basis for slavery as a defined social state.

It is natural, but exactly what slavery is in practice varies, as you note, the Philosopher describes barbarians making poor distinctions.

[Jayne]

I repeat the link I made to a Wikipedia article on another, less appropriate, thread:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

It begins:

The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. Likewise, its victims have come from many different ethnicities and religious groups. The social, economic, and legal positions of slaves have differed vastly in different systems of slavery in different times and places.[1]

Slavery was relatively rare in pre-civilisation hunter-gatherer populations,[2] as it develops under conditions of social stratification.[3] Slavery operated in the first civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia,[4] which dates back as far as 3500 BC). Slavery features in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BCE), which refers to it as an established institution.[5] Slavery was widespread in the ancient world. It was found in almost every ancient civilization, including the Roman Empire. It became less common throughout Europe during the Early Middle Ages, although it continued to be practiced in some areas. Both Christians and Muslims captured each other as slaves during centuries of warfare in the Mediterranean.[6] Islamic slavery encompassed mainly Western and Central Asia, Northern and Eastern Africa, India, and Europe from the 7th to the 20th century. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600.

Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world, human trafficking remains an international problem. An estimated 25-40 million people were enslaved as of 2013, the majority of these in Asia.[7] During the 1983–2005 Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery.[8] Evidence emerged in the late 1990s of systematic child-slavery and trafficking on cacao plantations in West Africa.[9]

Slavery in the 21st century continues and generates $150 billion in annual profits.[10] Populations in regions with armed conflict are especially vulnerable, and modern transportation has made human trafficking easier.[11] In 2019 there were an estimated 40 million people worldwide subject to some form of slavery, 25% of them children.[10] Sixty-one percent[nb 1] are used for forced labor, mostly in the private sector. Thirty-eight percent[nb 2] live in forced marriages.[10] Other types of modern slavery are child soldiers, sex trafficking, and sexual slavery.

[TerrorDæmonum]

It begins:

Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world,

And this is wrong, given that slavery is legal in the USA:

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Jayne]

Quite right, Joseph.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5lYNgCVwFo[/yt]

[TerrorDæmonum]

Quite right, Joseph.

It is clearly shown then that slavery is legal in the USA and does not have the characteristics that many people think slavery must have.

Those making statements such as "slavery is evil" and attacking the idea it is "natural" have a huge uphill battle now.

I wonder if they are up for it?

They couldn't handle a spiritual discussion and they couldn't handle a theological discussion, but can they handle a facts discussion?

[Prayerful]

Quite right, Joseph.

It is clearly shown then that slavery is legal in the USA and does not have the characteristics that many people think slavery must have.

Those making statements such as "slavery is evil" and attacking the idea it is "natural" have a huge uphill battle now.

I wonder if they are up for it?

They couldn't handle a spiritual discussion and they couldn't handle a theological discussion, but can they handle a facts discussion?

Penal servitude is not chattel slavery (which is the only slavery meant here, not, relating to 'slave of Mary' or a 'slave to his passions') in any normal meaning of the word. Work might be required of a prisoner to reform or punish him. Alternatively an invader might compel labour from a defeated population. The prisoner is repaying a debt owed to society or humanity according to a programme formulated by the penal authorities and judiciary. A prisoner, someone compelled to work is not traded or sold or inherited or stripped of all rights beyond that to life. The prisoner is not property and has extensive rights. Anyhow words in English have whatever meaning people give to them. There is no Académie française for English, so slavery cannot have a meaning no one gives to it. A prisoner stamping out reg plates or breaking rocks is not a slave. He is undergoing punishment and reform. Any claim to his labour ends on release, the date of which is fixed, unlike manumission. Some advocates of slavery propounded ill founded notion that they were reforming blacks through work and education, but its legacy was an ill educated, education adverse, alienated portion of the US population.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Penal servitude is not chattel slavery (which is the only slavery meant here, not, relating to 'slave of Mary' or a 'slave to his passions') in any normal meaning of the word.

Penal servitude and chattel slavery and slavery are all different terms because they have different meanings.

The "normal meaning of a word" depends on context, and when this context is explicit, one cannot impose one's supposed understanding.

That is what happened elsewhere: things were explained beforehand, and people ignored it and went ahead responding as if chattel slavery as practiced in certain places at certain times were all there is.

Any form of slavery can be discussed on this thread, but you'll note the OP has a philosophical treatment of the subject. There is more to it than just one's presupposed understanding and assumptions.

[Prayerful]

Penal servitude is not chattel slavery (which is the only slavery meant here, not, relating to 'slave of Mary' or a 'slave to his passions') in any normal meaning of the word.

Penal servitude and chattel slavery and slavery are all different terms because they have different meanings.

The "normal meaning of a word" depends on context, and when this context is explicit, one cannot impose one's supposed understanding.

That is what happened elsewhere: things were explained beforehand, and people ignored it and went ahead responding as if chattel slavery as practiced in certain places at certain times were all there is.

Well you are saying slavery is legal in the US, which means you merge or comprehend both chattel slavery (only finite or mild at the pleasure of the owner) and judicial punishment (finite and strictly defined) under the word slavery. A word in English usually means what most take it to mean, outside certain technical fields, but even there a meaning will change if most specials which that to happen.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Well you are saying slavery is legal in the US

The US Constitution states that.

which means you merge or comprehend both chattel slavery (only finite or mild at the pleasure of the owner) and judicial punishment (finite and strictly defined) under the word slavery.

Again, not my words. The US Constitution.

A word in English usually means what most take it to mean, outside certain technical fields, but even there a meaning will change if most specials which that to happen.

Yes, terms of art are important to use and understand when they are being used. All the topics involved have been explicit in how words are being used.

This thread is about slavery: of all forms, and the most basic premise is that slavery is natural. The rest are particular instances of it.

One must be careful to use words carefully when care is called for.

Given the broad topic here, of slavery in all forms in history, we must have an open mind about what it looks like in any given area. What slavery is exactly in any given time and place depends on those particulars.

This is a broad topic: slavery means a lot of different things, just like "money" can mean a lot of different things in the same world-wide historical context.

[Prayerful]

Well you are saying slavery is legal in the US

The US Constitution states that.

which means you merge or comprehend both chattel slavery (only finite or mild at the pleasure of the owner) and judicial punishment (finite and strictly defined) under the word slavery.

Again, not my words. The US Constitution.

A word in English usually means what most take it to mean, outside certain technical fields, but even there a meaning will change if most specials which that to happen.

Yes, terms of art are important to use and understand when they are being used. All the topics involved have been explicit in how words are being used.

This thread is about slavery: of all forms, and the most basic premise is that slavery is natural. The rest are particular instances of it.

One must be careful to use words carefully when care is called for.

It is also not specific to English.

No it doesn't.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude

Notice there are two different terms nestling between 'neither' and 'nor.' Involuntary servitude is the lot of a prisoner who might be directed to complete tasks from mopping a floor to rock breaking. His punishment is finite in length and his rights are clearly understood, if not always observed. He is not bought, sold or inherited, and will be paid some amount which is a right not a concession by a kindly slave owner. He is not a slave. Enslavement is not imposed as a punishment for crime, only sometimes involuntary servitude to reform and punish, so only one of those words before 'except' has legal existence. Efforts to give slaves rights like the Code Noir of St Domingue or what is now Haiti were only really observed in their breach.

[TerrorDæmonum]

He is not bought, sold or inherited, and will be paid some amount which is a right not a concession by a kindly slave owner. He is not a slave.

That is interesting. Not all slaves in history could be bought, sold, or inherited. There were states of temporary slavery as well. Slavery is a very broad topic.

I really don't have much interest in the subject myself, although, I do know a lot of history.

[Prayerful]

He is not bought, sold or inherited, and will be paid some amount which is a right not a concession by a kindly slave owner. He is not a slave.

That is interesting. Not all slaves in history could be bought, sold, or inherited. There were states of temporary slavery as well. Slavery is a very broad topic.

I really don't have much interest in the subject myself, although, I do know a lot of history.

Slaves could be bound to a temple, but these might not be slaves as understood, rather a class of assistants bound to a priest. Temporary slavery is debt slavery, which was oftentimes only nominally temporary, more a pretext for slavery. Indentured servitude, a state to which many freed slaves were placed for a time, and the fate of many Irish deported by Ollie Cromwell (the second despoiler of Irish monasteries after his ancestor Tom) was de facto slavery, even if attended by a bunch of paperwork no slave had. Mamluks, an example of the slave soldier many Eastern potentates had, might not be tradeable, only bound in service. Later slaves soldiers predictably took power into their hands. Slavery is a broad matter.

[mikemac]

The English are proud to say that they were one of the first to outlaw slavery.  But were they.  Indentured servitude replaced it for the English.  Orphans were the target group.  My grand mother was held in indentured servitude.  That wasn't long ago.  Long after the US Civil War.  Now the United Nations recognizes indentured servitude as slavery.