there were both Roman debt slaves and slaves from conquered territories. Either could be freed from slavery by their owner, neither of them had rights. Roman slaves might have been treated slighty better, like not work themself to death on a boat or in a mine, I can't give a definite answer on that. The children born to slaves were property of the owner and they could do whatever they wanted with them. In short, slavery has always been a horrific practice throughout the ages
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Had to Shut Down a Co-Worker on the Subject of Slavery
- Thread starter BlackGoku03
- Start date
- Status
Roman slaves ended up acquiring some rights. As someone said above talking about it as if it was the same thing for hundreds of years is highly anachronistic. I'm not going to touch the bolded because it leads to an epistemological mess that can be avoided. There is no reason to compare the relative badness of social systems, especially since it'd be difficult to chose a rubric by which to do it that isn't entirely whiggish, unless there is something serious at stake, i.e. racism today. We should say that the black experience of slavery in the 18th and 19th century Americas was worse than previous systems of slavery elsewhere. I see no reason to compare whether Norman peonage or Celtic slavery was a worse system. We can just say both are things to be avoided.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
It's a way of saying "White people had it just as bad!"
Thelonelykoopa
Member
It should be also known quality of life as indentured servants I believe improved as time went on. During the very early bit of american colonization being an indentured servant was pretty much a death sentence but that was because living in the colonize as a free land owner was also close to a death sentence as well. As Quality of life improved in the colonies so did you chances of surviving being an indentured servant. The same could not be said to slavery which picked up around the time these improvements were happening and would mostly replace indentured servitude in the Colonies. Life became worst as slavery progressed in the Colonies as with each additional slave being added to the colonies the less important it became for the slave owners to keep their slaves alive and choose instead to work them to death as they became easier to replace.
A lot of early proto-eugenics, which by the way was considered America's first big scientific contribution, was experimentation with slaves. As with so much of the negative sides of 18th and 19th century America it derives from a perversion of the Scottish Enlightenment. Tracks on agricultural improvement written by literati such as Lord Kames were reinterpretation in the American environment to include slaves. American slaveholders thought of improving their slaves in the same way that a Scottish laird thought he could improve sheep breeds.
This essentially involved a large scale program of rape where masters made certain slaves reproduce completely ignoring existing familial structures, and in so doing sexually brutalized both the men and women involved.
Basically, and also, "get over it".
Again, I think you guys are misreading the actual argument that racists are going with here. It's basically calling Black Americans lazy and/or stupid. The Irish are being used as an example of how slavery didn't stop people from excelling later. The implication being that Black people aren't as successful as Irish people due to some internal failing because it simply doesn't take racism to exist.
"Get over it" might be a part of this, and some people might be sharing this sorts of ideas to spread that sentiment I suppose. Yet, I am quite sure that most of the time what I'm talking about is the primary point. If white people are primarily spreading this to other white people, which I assume to be the case, that is certainly the take that makes the most sense.
Honestly I think it is both
I know that is probably contradictory but lets face it, racists don't logic.
I agree that it can be both, but I think it's really overwhelmingly about what I was saying. That's the understanding of the interpretation that best supports a racist or "race-blind" worldview. I also disagree with your last point. Plenty of racists try to use logic, it's often bad, and create some sort of consistent world view. Anyone against racism needs to take that into account and counter it. A lot of racism doesn't come from faulty logic per se, a lot of it is based on a bunch of incorrect assumptions and then somewhat reasonable logical steps based on those assumptions. We need to understand that so we can tackle the real root of the problem. Dismissing racists as simply totally illogical runs the risk of giving them their own ideological breathing room.
You pay your debts with work, specifically by becoming a servant for another in any manner they need. May or may not have limits.
Basically, it is a form of slavery. The common form actually, in ancient Europe.
And almost certainly not nice overall.
SilentRacoon
Member
I have heard the words of those who genuinely believe slavery was a practice that white people had to suffer through just as much as black people.
People will find new heights of stupidity just to not admit they are descendants of vile human trash.
People will find new heights of stupidity just to not admit they are descendants of vile human trash.
BlackGoku03
Member
Damn Cocaloch, you've been educating the entire thread.
Yes, it can be both. I'm not sure what my co-worker's point was bringing it up though. It was a quick transition too.
And I recognize the struggle Irishmen went through, but when this type of stuff gets thrown into my face, I'm going to be defensive. I still wanted to talk about healthcare.
In the future, I will not talk to him about politics. I'll have to stonewall him every time. But damn... I love debating people but I don't like being the sole spokesperson for all black folk.
I appreciate the education on how varied indentured servitude can be. I hope you do appreciate that the person bringing it up at the OP's workplace was as ignorant of this as I am and was going on about the American system were people could legitimately buy their freedom.
As I said above this is a particularly complex issue for me as an Irish historian who does Atlantic history in the 17th and 18th centuries. As a result I've thought about it a lot.
As to your other points, yeah I totally understand. That's why I wouldn't ever blame anyone for uncritically challenging people bringing up that sort of stuff. Very few of them are actually interested in what happened. For them it's just a weapon to hurt people. What happened in Ireland is terrible, hell what was going on in England during the Civil War and Commonwealth was hardly a cakewalk, but pointing that out is simply less important that dealing with it as it is used 95% of the time. After all when most people bring it up they aren't saying, "Remember the horrible things that befell Irish people" they are making a meaningless and blatantly biased comparison. They want to turn history as a weapon. As much as historians have a duty to present the past as it was, I also think we have a duty to fight against it being used as a tool of oppression.
You have every right to say whatever you want in response to someone trying to use something which for them amounts to trivia as a weapon.
It's not ancient, and was not always about debts. In fact the most common instances involved debts only in the sense that the contract which turned them into servants also made the master provide transportation to the new world. Moreover this form was essentially a mutation of the apprenticeship system. Apprentices weren't slaves and neither were these types of Indentured Servants. Yet, as I've said throughout the thread though, that is only an ideal type of indentured servitude. There were many different forms throughout the English Atlantic. It's convenient shorthand for a number of interrelated experiences, nothing more.
It's also not slavery in the American sense of the word. That's a large part of the problem with the comparison.
It was often very bad, especially for those that were forced into it through one way or another. Yet there were forms that were perfectly benign. That doesn't exist for slavery in the British, American, Spanish, French, Dutch, or Portuguese case at all. With the possible exception of the very first, as in maybe a hundred or so, black slaves in Virginia where they were treated as indentured servants. (Myne Owne Ground is the book to look at on the topic)
The experiences of black slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries is simply far far worse than those of indentured servants.
And I just caught this.
No indentured servitude was not necessarily slavery. Sometimes it could be something akin to chattel slavery. But at a bare minimum people were never owned. The contracts that guaranteed their indentured status were. You aren't paying attention to how people are using the argument in question here. You are right, slavery is always bad and indentured servitude often was, but the people arguing against this interpretation aren't bringing it up for no reason. People feel the need to make it a competition between the two because racist people use it against them. In the case I would prefer for people to not speak incorrectly, i.e. acting like all indentured servitude was the kind articulated in high school textbooks, but that takes a back seat to people doing this to contribute to the oppression of black people.
At the end of the day probably a very small percent of the population will ever really care about indentured servitude as a system, the fact that so many people talk about it should make you think about why that is and what the stakes are.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked