4 ms·

Lola was a servant, but not a slave. She was much closer to being a volunteer than to a slave.

by dennisgorelik 9y ago

kelnos 9y ago
Servants get paid and have the freedom to choose their own destiny. Lola had neither of those things.
- abalashov 9y ago
  If I had to read the grandparent's comment charitably, there is a formal distinction in that Lola's relationship to the family was not legally institutionalised. If they tried to stop her from leaving the house by force, they would be committing a crime. Whether it amounted to de facto slavery is a different question, as I pointed out in another comment on this article.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I fail to see how the distinction matters. If you are treated like a slave, act like a slave, required to do a slave's work, and aren't compensated and are coerced into giving up your freedom, then you are a slave. The legalities or formal relationship is irrelevant. The de facto nature of her slavery is all that matters.
    - abalashov 9y ago
      I don't disagree with you in the slightest, personally. I was just trying to provide some interpretation of the possible guiding sentiment behind ancestor comments.
- dennisgorelik 9y ago
  > Servants get paid Not necessarily. They could be volunteers. > freedom to choose their own destiny Lola had the freedom to choose when she was deciding to move to the US. She also had freedom to choose when she was deciding whether to keep working for that family. If she wanted - she could walk out any time. Lola also wanted to keep working even when she retired and was even discouraged from working. Calling that relationship "slavery" is not fair to actual "slaves" who were forced to work against their will.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > Lola had the freedom to choose when she was deciding to move to the US. She agreed to go based on lies and false promises. She was emotionally manipulated into moving. > She also had freedom to choose when she was deciding whether to keep working for that family. If she wanted - she could walk out any time. Having "choice" in name is one thing, but actually being able to execute that choice is another. There are several points in the original article that illustrate that even if she was given a choice, or could have theoretically taken matters into her own hands, she was constrained by her lack of funds, illiteracy, lack of US citizenship, lies told to her by her slave masters, and just plain fear. Sure, slaves in the South back in antebellum America could "choose" to get out of their situation, and many did... and often it resulted in injury, death, or return to their masters, where they were further brutalized. While the situation may not have been the same with Lola, that does not make her in any way less a slave. > Lola also wanted to keep working even when she retired and was even discouraged from working. So what? Kidnapping victims who experience Stockholm Syndrome often feel emotionally attached to their kidnappers and want to stay with them, but that does not make them any less victims of kidnapping. Lola's actions at that point were in the same vein. > Calling that relationship "slavery" is not fair to actual "slaves" who were forced to work against their will. She was forced to work against her will. Period. Any other reading of the original article is pure fantasy, and I'm absolutely appalled and disgusted that so many people in this thread are acting as apologists and downplaying the severity of this situation.

Lola was a servant, but not a slave. She was much closer to being a volunteer than to a slave.

kelnos 9y ago

Servants get paid and have the freedom to choose their own destiny. Lola had neither of those things.

abalashov 9y ago
If I had to read the grandparent's comment charitably, there is a formal distinction in that Lola's relationship to the family was not legally institutionalised. If they tried to stop her from leaving the house by force, they would be committing a crime. Whether it amounted to de facto slavery is a different question, as I pointed out in another comment on this article.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I fail to see how the distinction matters. If you are treated like a slave, act like a slave, required to do a slave's work, and aren't compensated and are coerced into giving up your freedom, then you are a slave. The legalities or formal relationship is irrelevant. The de facto nature of her slavery is all that matters.
  - abalashov 9y ago
    I don't disagree with you in the slightest, personally. I was just trying to provide some interpretation of the possible guiding sentiment behind ancestor comments.
dennisgorelik 9y ago
> Servants get paid Not necessarily. They could be volunteers. > freedom to choose their own destiny Lola had the freedom to choose when she was deciding to move to the US. She also had freedom to choose when she was deciding whether to keep working for that family. If she wanted - she could walk out any time. Lola also wanted to keep working even when she retired and was even discouraged from working. Calling that relationship "slavery" is not fair to actual "slaves" who were forced to work against their will.
- kelnos 9y ago
  > Lola had the freedom to choose when she was deciding to move to the US. She agreed to go based on lies and false promises. She was emotionally manipulated into moving. > She also had freedom to choose when she was deciding whether to keep working for that family. If she wanted - she could walk out any time. Having "choice" in name is one thing, but actually being able to execute that choice is another. There are several points in the original article that illustrate that even if she was given a choice, or could have theoretically taken matters into her own hands, she was constrained by her lack of funds, illiteracy, lack of US citizenship, lies told to her by her slave masters, and just plain fear. Sure, slaves in the South back in antebellum America could "choose" to get out of their situation, and many did... and often it resulted in injury, death, or return to their masters, where they were further brutalized. While the situation may not have been the same with Lola, that does not make her in any way less a slave. > Lola also wanted to keep working even when she retired and was even discouraged from working. So what? Kidnapping victims who experience Stockholm Syndrome often feel emotionally attached to their kidnappers and want to stay with them, but that does not make them any less victims of kidnapping. Lola's actions at that point were in the same vein. > Calling that relationship "slavery" is not fair to actual "slaves" who were forced to work against their will. She was forced to work against her will. Period. Any other reading of the original article is pure fantasy, and I'm absolutely appalled and disgusted that so many people in this thread are acting as apologists and downplaying the severity of this situation.