3 ms·

We disagree at the definition of what slavery is. My definition of it is complete subordination to some masters, with no rights and in an inhumane situation (e

by gkya 8y ago

We disagree at the definition of what slavery is. My definition of it is complete subordination to some masters, with no rights and in an inhumane situation (e.g. Afro-American slavery). Your definition seems to be that it is any sort of subjugation to some foreign powers. Even the fact that almost all businesses in the Empire were run by Christians prove, with my definition, that the situation was not that of enslavement, but instead that of imperial dominance. According to your definition, almost all imperial rule since Hittites necessarily include some sort of mass enslavement (which is not totally unagreable, but IMHO probably not a very useful way to assess history). I guess we can safely disagree there, as both definitions can be correct, depending on the viewpoint. Apart from that, we also agree on being atheists, as I can say I'm one too (I'm also of the opinion that "nation" is a useless and perilous abstaction, BTW, which means I'm not getting at this from a nationalistic PoW).

dragandj 8y ago
Serbian (and other smaller nations) in Austria-Hungary were under what you would call imperial dominance. In Ottoman Turkey, it was definitely much heavier. In many ways, local Christian population in Balkans was literally enslaved. That's one of the reasons that large part of Serbian population collectively fled en masse from old Serbia to then Austria-Hungary in 16th century, and left a literally empty countryside, which was later re-populated by Serbian and Albanian population from even poorer mountainous areas. I mean, finding cases of African American slaves that lived and worked as cooks or home attendants, or nannies, or whatever easier jobs were available in the South, in addition to much harder cotton picking would not be an argument that those people were not enslaved. The fact that one does not literally carry chains the whole day does not mean that he is not a slave, if the owner can literally decide on the life and death, without much consequence. If we talk about imperial dominance in Ottoman Balkans, I would accept that local Muslim population (largely converts) lived under imperial dominance. Christian peasants - much, much heavier.

by gkya 8y ago

dragandj 8y ago

Serbian (and other smaller nations) in Austria-Hungary were under what you would call imperial dominance. In Ottoman Turkey, it was definitely much heavier. In many ways, local Christian population in Balkans was literally enslaved. That's one of the reasons that large part of Serbian population collectively fled en masse from old Serbia to then Austria-Hungary in 16th century, and left a literally empty countryside, which was later re-populated by Serbian and Albanian population from even poorer mountainous areas. I mean, finding cases of African American slaves that lived and worked as cooks or home attendants, or nannies, or whatever easier jobs were available in the South, in addition to much harder cotton picking would not be an argument that those people were not enslaved. The fact that one does not literally carry chains the whole day does not mean that he is not a slave, if the owner can literally decide on the life and death, without much consequence. If we talk about imperial dominance in Ottoman Balkans, I would accept that local Muslim population (largely converts) lived under imperial dominance. Christian peasants - much, much heavier.