5 ms·
Even more importantly, these farmers were, for the most part, slaves. The article is describing a society where for every one "middle class person" just like u
by mrjangles 5y ago
Even more importantly, these farmers were, for the most part, slaves. The article is describing a society where for every one "middle class person" just like us, there were 20 slaves working full time to support him. It is then comparing the living standard of that one person surviving off essentially 20 slaves to the living standard of the average person today in a society with no slaves.
Of course, as long as this is emphasized then the article really does do a good job of making it clear how much things have improved for everyone on Earth in the last 500 years.
- sillyquiet 5y agoIt's hard to find much substantial or practical difference between a serf and a slave, but to add some nuance a serf definitely had some fairly substantial rights in England, at least theoretically that a slave in the modern sense does not. And it might be a subtle distinction in practice, but a serf's labor was what was owned by their lord, not their persons.
- karpierz 5y agoSome distinctions: - Killing a serf is murder, killing a slave is property damage. - A serf can bear witness, and accuse. A slave cannot. - A slave can be sold and forced to go wherever the new owner wills. A serf cannot.
- supperburg 5y agoDo you have a degree in history? How many history books have you read cover to cover?