
What do slaveholders think? - nkurz
https://aeon.co/essays/this-is-what-slavery-looks-like-today-in-the-eyes-of-slavers
======
jbuzbee
I often wondered how slave holders justified their actions. And along those
lines, I recall a lecture on Roman slavery. It made the point that it was
standard-practice in Roman and other ancient cultures to raid other groups,
kill everyone and take their possessions: livestock, food, valuables, etc.
That was the way of the world that everyone knew. In the Roman mind, when the
raiding party decided to let some people live and sell them into slavery, they
were doing the captives a favor. They were saved from death. And from then on
the slaves were more-or-less the walking dead with no rights and owing their
"masters" everything. They were only alive because of the grace of the
invaders. The lecture also noted that there was _no_ writing from Roman times
that questioned the morality of slavery. No one thought it was wrong. There
are extensive writings from literate slaves themselves, and even these
writings fail to question the morality of slavery. And speaking of writing,
the Bible was written in a time when slavery was common practice. I don't
recall Jesus preaching against slavery or the 10 Commandments coming out
against it either.

~~~
bambax
How do we justify killing animals, including their young, in giant torture
factories where rivers of blood flow amidst the cries and horror of the
victims, while the killers laugh and laugh, as spy videos show repeatedly?

We don't think about it.

How do we justify letting refugees die on sinking ships in the Mediterranean
sea, or on the shores of Europe, including young children?

We don't think about it.

How do we justify bombing civilians, hospitals, wedding parties in remote
countries we're not even at war with?

We don't think about it.

It's easy, really. The only thing easier than this, is thinking we're morally
superior to the Romans, or to modern slave owners, because we don't "own
slaves".

We're not (I'm not vegan btw, and do nothing to stop wars or help refugees).
We're worse in many respects.

~~~
pjmlp
You forgot the arena like fights transmitted live on TV with little difference
from gladiator fights.

Just with the difference that people usually don't get killed on the arena,
and the subject being some kind of martial arts instead of reproducing past
battles.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Comparing modern combat sports to slavery and animal torture is ludicrous.

The contestants are there of their own free will and the sports are actually
pretty safe.

You might as well claim that all physical sports are in the same camp as
slavery, because its physical competition and people get hurt sometimes.

~~~
falcolas
Not all gladiators were slaves. Many were well regarded for their abilities.

We still have trophy hunters today, who hunt not for food or sustenance, but
for a pelt or a tusk.

> are actually pretty safe

We used to think that Boxing and Football were "pretty safe" as well. Then we
learned how much impact things like concussions have on a person's life. I
can't really imagine that MMA is that much safer when I see people repeatedly
being choked out, having joints nearly separated, getting knocked out...

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Your comparison to trophy hunting makes no sense. One entity killing another
unwilling entity for sport is no comparison to two willing participants
engaging in a physical contest with rules and a referee where at least one of
th goals is to minimize long term damage.

Agree on football and boxing, not a fan of either. As for MMA the jury is
still out but I hardly think equating it with slavery makes sense because you
"can't imagine" it's safe, even though you don't have the data. I mean,
comparing that to literally owning another human?

All sports have physical risk, even solo sports. Does that mean that when I go
rock climbing, I might as well be owning slaves or torturing animals?

------
yummyfajitas
This article is conflating debt bondage with slavery. This is a huge error.
Some debt bondage, like what is described in the article, is abusive and
harmful.

But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My sister was debt bonded
for a while; Crossfit paid for her personal trainer certification, but she had
to pay them back if she quit her job in a year. A girl I dated is getting a
Masters from Columbia, but she has to continue working for the Diplomatic
Corps in her country for 3 years after graduation. In fact, many valley
engineers meet the definition of bonded labor: you need to give back the
signing bonus if you quit in < 1 year.

Economically, bonded labor with transparent contracts is a way to allow
employers to pay to improve the human capital of their workers. On HN we often
lament the fact that employers don't invest in employees, and the main reason
for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the employee leaves.

In India and the US there is a lot of bonded labor and it ranges across the
spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly among professionals - is not
remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion
should acknowledge this.

~~~
zeofig
This article is conflating slavery with abusive human disempowerment. Some
slavery, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful.

But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My cousin by marriage was
a slave for a while; his master paid for his financial certification and gave
him a small allowance, but he had to save up sufficient funds before he could
buy his way to freedom. A girl I used to date used to be a slave, but she
chose to remain with the family who owned her even after she bought her
freedom, and remains an integral and happy member of the household. In fact,
many successful members of our community, particularly business owners and
managers, are slaves or former slaves!

Economically, slavery with proper laws and regulations is a way for families
and moneyed individuals to improve the quality of their household or business,
while giving an otherwise hopeless individual the chance to enter into Roman
society. Here at the Tinkerers' Forum we often lament the fact that slave
owners don't invest in their slaves, and the main reason for this is that they
can't recoup their costs if the slave dies or escapes.

In Rome and its provinces there is a lot of slavery and it ranges across the
spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly in the educated and enlightened
centre of the Empire - is not remotely exploitative and is economically
beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.

~~~
yummyfajitas
My sister chose to enter into this arrangement with crossfit. She could have
done something else if she preferred. She made an informed choice that being a
crossfit instructor was worthwhile.

Your imagined cousin did not have this option. That's the fundamental
distinction.

However, it is very much worth discussing slavery in the Greek/Roman context -
it did differ very much from American slavery. And even American slavery is
known to us these days mainly from works of propaganda (e.g. Uncle Tom's
Cabin, or modern propaganda like Django Unchained), so our perception of it
may not be accurate either.

~~~
kakarot
One group of people forced another group of people to labor for them under
threat of physical violence. These people were systematically denied freedoms.
Their owners were, naturally, extremely racist.

What exactly about Django is meant to be propaganda? How does it misrepresent
slavery other than the exaggerated comedic situations? Do you truly believe
Quentin Tarantino was attempting to brainwash people about what slavery was
like?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Django Unchained was meant to make the viewer enjoy violence against certain
people. To do this, they needed to make those people as awful and
unsympathetic as possible.

~~~
mirimir
Well, it's a Tarantino movie! That's what he does!

But it doesn't mean that slavery isn't evil.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I didn't say it wasn't evil. I said that our perceptions of how it actually
worked might not be accurate.

~~~
mirimir
I get what you say about debt bondage, and how it can be voluntary. And the
right to bankruptcy more or less guarantees that.

What I don't get is what about our perceptions of how slavery worked in the US
might not be accurate. Except maybe in negligible ways. I mean, people were
born into slavery. They could be given freedom. But they typically had no way
to earn it. What am I missing?

Actually, what's arguably missing is how widespread debt bondage was. Poor
white immigrants were sold just like black slaves, and typically worked ten
years to pay for their passage. And children who came with them had to work
until 18, and could be sold separately.

Edit: typo

~~~
yummyfajitas
_What I don 't get is what about our perceptions of how slavery worked in the
US might not be accurate. Except maybe in negligible ways. I mean, people were
born into slavery. They could be given freedom. But they typically had no way
to earn it. What am I missing?_

What you are missing is that the sadistic behavior seen in Django Unchained
was uncommon. Slaves were expensive. People don't usually destroy a $40k Lexus
for entertainment - they usually take good care of their expensive capital
investments, and they treat their own car far better than a rental.

In fact, slaves were often treated comparably or better than freeman laborers.
Here is a modern treatment:
[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/JLE-1977.pdf](http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/JLE-1977.pdf)

Or you can read a contemporary treatment, from a northern unitarian
abolitionist who visited the south:
[http://www.authorama.com/full/pdf/A-Southside-View-of-
Slaver...](http://www.authorama.com/full/pdf/A-Southside-View-of-Slavery--
Nehemiah-Adams.pdf)

Note: none of what I've said here should remotely be interpreted as a defense
of slavery. Just an acknowledgement that my modern mental picture of American
slavery is likely not that accurate.

~~~
watwut
However, if $40k Lexus attempts to flee or disrespect owner multiple times,
owner will happily throw away the car or in case of slave violently punish him
or her. The "cared about them well due to cost" narrative conveniently ignores
situations where ability to be violent toward "property" matters the most.

~~~
lgas
Especially if it would help keep the other Lexuses in line.

------
nojvek
I have Indian heritage. My parents are incredibly religious. A large part of
India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion.

The brahmin, shudra (castes) stems from the ancient scriptures which a lot of
people staunchly believe in.

From modern point of view a lot of the scriptures are quite racist and sexist
to be honest. I have arguments with my family all the time regarding this. I
know quite a number of people who legit believe in untouchables.

I strongly believe that as India becomes less religious, it will prosper and
the people will become happier.

~~~
linuxkerneldev
> A large part of India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion

The article mentions:

Ahmed, a middle-class slaveholder in Uttar Pradesh in India, was eager to show
me around the village where he was a member of the ruling elite. While I was
grateful for the warm reception, I was visiting Ahmed’s community because of
gross human-rights violations – bonded labour, child exploitation, and
outbound human trafficking.

My understanding is that Ahmed is an Arabic name and I had been told that Arab
people enslaved Indians and that this practice still goes on today. So I'm
confused now. Are Hindus enslaving other Hindus?

Further, I'm wondering how this all relates to the article. The article
doesn't mention religion at all so it is unclear to me whether you're saying
Hinduism encourages slavery. I have Hindu friends who told me there is no such
thing as "scripture" in Hinduism because there is no "god given" book like
Torah, Bible or Quran. So I'm having difficulty understanding what's going on
in India.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I have Hindu friends who told me there is no such thing as "scripture" in
> Hinduism because there is no "god given" book like Torah, Bible or Quran. So
> I'm having difficulty understanding what's going on in India.

There's no short answer to your question. The real "answer" is that Hinduism
is a multifaceted religion which encompasses a massive range of different
beliefs and practices, which cannot all be neatly classified with a single
stroke.

To give you some perspective, it's arguably easier to make statements about
Abrahamic faiths as a whole (encompassing everything from Satmars to Salafists
to Mormons) than it is to make statements about Hinduism as a whole.

~~~
mercer
> To give you some perspective, it's arguably easier to make statements about
> Abrahamic faiths as a whole (encompassing everything from Satmars to
> Salafists to Mormons) than it is to make statements about Hinduism as a
> whole.

I'm not disagreeing, just to be clear, but fascinated by this statement. Could
you provide some evidence for it?

------
laughingman2
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber
published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social
institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war
and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It
draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and
small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the
present.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years)

------
Dowwie
Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about
how attitudes in the American South toward slavery evolved over time and what
we can learn from that evolution about the role culture plays in our lives:
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.html)

------
altonzheng
I wish this article went into more of the philosophies of the slaveholders.
Slavery is bad no doubt, but I can see how someone would rationalize it as
providing security and peace of mind. If you give up your freedom and personal
responsibility in return for guaranteed food and shelter, I can see it
sounding okay, especially if the other option is to question where your next
meal comes from. The problem is the power imbalance that leaves you at the
whims of your master.

------
danielfoster
The techniques listed here, especially emotional manipulation, aren't too
dissimilar from what low-wage employers in developed countries do.

~~~
ams6110
Curious what your experience in working low-wage jobs is?

~~~
GedByrne
[http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct-
invest...](http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct-
investigation-reveals-harsh-working-conditions)

------
speeder
Slavery is a subject I find fairly interesting, but sadly, it only 'appears'
to be discussed, frank discussions of slavery have the problem that most
people or assume that anyone with any slight impression of defending slavery
in any for is 100% evil, or they assume others expect that behaviour, and
'pretend' they have it, stifling discussion and research.

For example research into the african slavery, and the result of slavery on
the lives of africans transported to the Americas (not only US), frequently
just result in researchers dismissed as being 'revisionists', and no real
discussion show up, the few people that end having courage to discuss it for
real, frequently are actual bigoted racists, that don't care about the wider
public opinion of them, on both sides of the coin (I saw blatant racists both
anti-white and anti-black).

~~~
ue_
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you talking about debating the merits
of slavery? Forgive me if I'm incredulous, but what kind of results are there
to debate? Are you implying that there were good results to come from slavery?
I am genuinely interested in what there is to know, as I'm horribly ignorant
of it myself.

I was reading on slavery today, and came across an interesting couple of
quotes by Engels:

>The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that
the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but
piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him
to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the
slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class.

and

>The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he
abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the
proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

I'd say myself it's a greater shame that _wage slavery_ is discussed as
sparsely as it is.

~~~
Mikhail_Edoshin
Slavery (as well as private enterprises) is a form to coordinate efforts of an
enterprise that _requires_ more than one worker to function. "Requires" means
that without a coordinated effort the enterprise won't be possible. Such
enterprises are more productive than single workers and the gain is not
linear, i.e. an enterprise that has two workers is more productive than two
separate workers put together. This is why slavery (= coordinated team effort)
is beneficial: it increases the wealth of the society more than when everyone
is free and works on its own.

Of course, slavery is a very crude form of coordinated team effort. Private
enterprise is much better and much more flexible; in fact, this is the best
form so far. Best practical form, that is. I can imagine maybe a more
attractive setup on a smaller scale, something like a community where the team
effort is coordinated by the leader and everyone obeys because the leader is
wise and knowledgeable or out of tradition; a monastery would be a good real-
life example here. But I fail to imagine that this would scale.

Now, I believe that coordinated team effort in any form has to strip team
members out of some of their liberties. E.g. if your enterprise is to work
around the clock (and it may have to due to technical reasons), then some
people will have to work nights. Yet coordinated work is so much more
productive than single-person efforts that it's beneficial to accept these
limits. Remember a DIY hamburger experiment where a guy wanted to make a plain
hamburger all by himself and ended up with around $5,000 in costs and even
that wasn't cheat-free?

~~~
ue_
>Slavery (as well as private enterprises) is a form to coordinate efforts of
an enterprise that requires more than one worker to function.

I'm not arguing against coordination of efforts; rather I am talking about
coordinating efforts on a small and preferably ad-hoc basis as a form of
project management. Abolishing the class which appropriates surplus is by no
means abolishing project managers and engineers. People partake voluntarily,
and how much work is done is decided by direct democracy beforehand, either
with delegates subject to instant recall or in person.

Yes, some people may need to work nights, though working nights is usually an
effect of the fact that a product needs to be finished by a certain point in
time in order to meet profit expectations. However even when there is a
deadline, working nights need not be something involuntary as it almost is
nowadays.

Businesses collaborate on projects at a small scale, and many projects can be
put into 'monastery-size' collaborative teams. My main point is that the
participation has to be voluntary, and that no surplus should be appropriated
at any stage.

------
6502nerdface
The author of the linked post is associated with Free the Slaves, a highly
rated charity [1] that I'd recommend supporting to anyone troubled by modern
slavery. He has a follow-on article up on their website. [2]

[1]
[https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11051)

[2] [http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what-
sl...](http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what-slaveholders-
think/)

------
woodandsteel
This is an amazing article. Writings about slave holders all seem to fall into
two sorts. One defends them and says they are the finest of people, and the
very foundation of civilization. The other sort says they are evil through and
through.

This article instead gets at the actual reality of their psychology, which
turns out to be a lot more complicated.

Let me add one point, which is that slavery seems to largely be a function of
economics and the level of technology of a society. In nomadic foraging
societies, from what I have read, slavery is unknown because it is impractical
and has no economic value.

But with agriculture slavery becomes possible and can produce great wealth and
many other sorts of value, and so it becomes wide-spread. But then with
industrialization it again becomes uneconomic, and so is abolished. What the
article describes quite clearly is a country moving from a largely agrarian
economy to an industrial one, and how slavery is being slowly eliminated in
the process.

------
kafkaesq
_How do its beneficiaries justify it?_

Because they can get away with it. Or more precisely: because _we_ let them
get away with it.

Granted, the remedy (in so many words: rigorous supply-chain screening + a
homeopathic dose of consciousness raising among the general public) is far
from trivial. But _doable_. Yet so far we're only taking baby steps at
cracking it.

------
mythrwy
Just as a flower grows from rot and decayed matter, the unpleasant things in
human history and unpleasant things in human nature have provided what was
needed for that which we have which is beautiful and life giving and good
right now.

We look at a little slice of time and moralize. Which is all we can
practically do. But morality changes and it doesn't come out of nothing
either.

------
coldtea
> _What do slaveholders think?_

Not anything that different from "sweatshop" employers or any shitty employer
for that matter.

------
fuzzfactor
When Florida was under British control, Denys Rolle, British MP, brought
settlers to his royally granted estate for the purpose of turning it into a
capitalist plantation.

This was before the first (haha) American Revolution.

They took the closest thing resembling a flight from London to sunny Florida
that there was back then. It was a sailing ship. -passage alone was 6 guineas
(Pounds Sterling at the time)

Fundamentally the chattel slaves were treated as cargo and expensed, everyone
else was paying in one way or another for the venture to improve "their share"
of the estate "provided" them.

In this way the granted estate as a whole could be made "real" for the grantee
(Rolle) after having first been nothing but decreed royal rights to not-yet-
fully surveyed land.

Attempted Florida real estate in its infancy. Make it more real than it was,
so those who come along next will pay more rent.

1766 terms of settlement -help turn wilderness into a foundation for building
Rolle a productive multinational agricultural venture -these one-way bundles
include passage -all get a small lot in "town" and 5 acres for farming -plus
"no limits as to quantity" of additional heritable farmland for a fee -all for
a low, low, "small quit-rent" (property tax)

indigent class - 4 years indentured sharecropping in lieu of 12 guineas
-expected to achieve the wherewithal to "purchase nearly two negroes" of his
own after 4 years

third class "bare necessaries" \- 12 guineas -you get survival materials, farm
tools and a pig

second class - 21 guineas -you also get craftsman's tools and more livestock
-you still have to perform your own labor

first class - 51 guineas -"The remaining 30 guineas may be employed in the
price and wages of indented servants, or a working negro may be purchased with
it."

The sections in his own words do lend an idea about what the slaveholders of
the traditional British aristocracy might have thought. The following document
is worthwhile in its entirety but Rolle's account starts about halfway down
the page:

[https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1...](https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Extract+from+an+Account+of+East+Florida&source=bl&ots=QNsyfRR4oJ&sig=wvFh4YSDMROOO1_tl45aD8RIbhM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIvUs_tBZOjhge21ID4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Extract%20from%20an%20Account%20of%20East%20Florida&f=false)

Later, after the British lost the war they ended up ceding Florida to Spain in
1783, and Rolle relocated his downsized plantation to the neighboring British
territory of the Bahama Islands, claiming great losses due to the political
change of sovereignty.

This takes place a few years after the most recent American Revolution (same
war as above) which had started in 1776. Florida was not one of the 13 North
American colonies which had declared independence from Britain.

In the interim period Rolle had made the transition to pure slave labor going
forward, instead of the original indentured arrangement.

The thoughts of this same gentleman 14 - 17 years later can be further hinted
at by this next document from 1780 - 1783. The Rolle information again starts
about halfway down the page:

[http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantati...](http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantations/San_Marco-
Jericho-Chichester.htm)

Detailed is the work output expected of the various slave types (considered to
be probably exaggerated for the purpose of his bureaucratic claim for
financial compensation).

Among pages of claims, chattel slaves were by then valued per head at:

100 Pounds Sterling for Trade workers 50 for Field workers 15 for "Rising
Generation" children 0 for "Past Labour" kitchen workers no longer capable of
Field performance

Quite a bit of inflation, if it can be believed.

Only the chattel slaves have been made illegal since then, but there are bound
to be ruling classes over a period of centuries where when the prohibition of
slavery came along, it was treated as a technicality. Depends on where the
line is drawn. I believe this line is called labor law.

But it's not only a matter of where the line is drawn and what the terms are,
but more importantly who draws the line and sets the terms.

------
meatanddairy
Just ask ranchers and dairy farmers.

~~~
spraak
Likely many people will downvote this, but I see your point.

~~~
ams6110
Enlighten us?

~~~
mikepurvis
I assume the point is that intelligent mammals like cows are being held and
abused against their will for the benefit of their owners, and so dairy
farmers and ranchers are the beneficiaries of this "slavery".

~~~
brighteyes
More generally, philosophers like Peter Singer talk about the connection
between human rights and animal rights. Singer describes "the expanding
circle" in which moral progress involves accepting more people into the circle
of those we care about: first just the family, then the tribe, then a nation,
then greater and greater groups (different races, religions, etc.), and so
forth, and a further step is to include animals as well. [1]

Another perspective on the connection between human rights and animal rights
is that it is no coincidence that sociopaths often abuse animals. Those that
wish to harm humans often wish to harm animals and vice versa.

Likewise, most humans that see factory farming are horrified. We can't help
but emphasize with them.

[1] [http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on-
exp...](http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on-expanding-
circle.html)

------
antingate2
What was slavery like, for the slave? It depended on the quality of your
master. What is government like for the governed?

------
yummyfajitas
Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of
evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would
result?

I'd gamble at 3:1 odds that I'd be downvoted and called racist. Just look what
happened to Yarvin for merely comparing slavery to government (a more
longwinded version of this:
[http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/no...](http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/nozick_slave.html)
).

~~~
jordanb
> Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of
> evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would
> result?

The problem is that the distortion of your ethics and values would have to be
so extreme to arrive at such a conclusion that anyone who read that sentence
would know that you have an extremely "different" way of looking at the world,
and not in a good way.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg)

~~~
mafribe

       distortion of your ethics
    

It's interesting to reflect on the fact that there were many slave revolts in
antiquity, but the revolting slaves did not seek to abolish slavery, they
merely wanted to stop being slaves and have their own slaves. In other words,
even slaves had no problem with slavery as an institution.

We also should always be aware that every serious discussion of slavery must
begin with the question: what do you mean by "slavery", for the term is used
in wildly different ways.

~~~
yardie
Could you give examples of this. Of the slave revolts I can remember in recent
history none of them wanted to replace their masters. They just wanted out.

But pondering further. If you have a successful revolt what do you believe the
punishment for the perpetrators should be. Would death be a just punishment?
What if the empowered slaves offered enslavement of their former masters as an
alternative?

~~~
mafribe

       Could you give examples of this.
    

Example of what? The standard text on the subject [1] says there are no known
instances of slave revolts in antiquity that sought to abolish slavery as an
institution. If you know counterexamples, I'd be interested to learn about
them.

    
    
       Would death be a just punishment?
       What if ...
    

I can't see either being particularly productive. It's really very simple --
albeit unpleasant: there is a reason why some small group of people manage to
enslave a large number of people: slavers are _better_ than slaves. Better at
cooperation, better at conflict avoidance, better at socially organising
violence, better at dividing-and-conquering their enemies, better at science,
better at engineering, better at teaching their children, better at forming
and maintaining society. Slaves should learn from slavers, not kill them. But
learning is hard, and not immediately emotionally gratifying.

The Haitian slave revolution of the late 18th, early 19th century lead to
immediate genocide of the remaining whites and and mixed race inhabitants [2].
Haiti, which was once the wealthiest Caribbean island has been a basket case
ever since.

Coincidentally, after the successful revolution, the black leadership
reinstituted slavery, albeit symbolically abolishing the whip [3].

The Haitian slave rebellion teaches us a large number of lessons about
humanity, most not very palatable.

[1] Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realencyclop%C3%A4die_der_clas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realencyclop%C3%A4die_der_classischen_Altertumswissenschaft)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#Free_republ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#Free_republic)

------
stevespang
It is everywhere illegal yet slavery persists in many corners of the global
economy. How do its beneficiaries justify it?

This piece was written by a professor, isn't there an error in the subtitle in
the proper use of the English language ?

The subtitle would be corrected by stating: It is illegal everywhere, yet
slavery . . . . .

(switch everywhere and illegal)

~~~
nkurz
As a native speaker of American English, I'd say that neither ordering is
incorrect. Your suggestion ("illegal everywhere") is indeed more common, and
would usually be better choice in conversational speech and popular writing.
The subtitle ("everywhere illegal") isn't wrong, though, just stilted.
Presuming the author is a native speaker, it's almost certainly not an error,
but a conscious choice to employ "hyperbaton".

Overused, this sort of inverted word order can leave you sounding like a
mishmash of Monty Python, Yoda, and a bad fantasy novel, but applied
selectively, it acts as a defamiliarization that adds emphasis. Here, the
inverted ordering conveys a sense of being legalistic, Biblical, and archaic.
Presumably this is intended to hint to the reader that piece will argue that
the practice of slavery is similarly out-of-place in the modern world.

~~~
HappyDreamer
I also think this added emphasis. I liked the way the author phrased it, i.e.
"...everywhere illegal". To me, it gave the impression of focusing on the word
"everywhere". (I'm not a native speaker.)

~~~
kwhitefoot
> it gave the impression of focusing on the word "everywhere"

That's precisely my understanding of it. I am a native English speaker
(British English).

------
brazzledazzle
HN comments debating the merits of slavery. Yikes. Besides being a head
scratcher it's kind of a disgusting, albeit fascinating, look into some
people's minds. Maybe it's the weekend crowd.

------
spraak
Also somewhat related: 5th-Grader ‘Sold’ in Mock Slave Auction at New Jersey
School -
[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf)

------
Mendenhall
The poor job of propaganda in this article made me laugh. You can tell it has
more to do with "modern politics" than any dive into what slaveholders think.
My favorite quote.

"It’s only now that we are waking up to ask new questions about Right-wing
movements such as the Ku Klux Klan and Al-Qaeda. A fresh generation of
scholars are writing books about the Tea Party and those who protest on behalf
of the rich"

------
SticksAndBreaks
The same that capitalists think. Those mongrel are so much better of due to my
hard work. They have food, shelter and something to do with there lives. Else
they would vandalize on the street.

What if a slaveholder is a slave? Can dependancy hell apply to a owned person?

------
aaron695
The problem with word changing, which seems all the rage, is intelligent,
logical people see through it and get put off.

And to make it worse the dumb dumbs start saying stuff like there are more
slaves today than ever.

Not understanding comparing real slaves numbers in the old days to indentured
servitude today, leaves out the fact most people were in indentured servitude
for most of history.

But the dumb dumbs have the numbers, I guess playing them might be the best
tactic to eradicate this awful practice.

