> "slavery" is even less apt since it implies a tie to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action. Look - I agree that neither wo

> "slavery" is even less apt since it implies a tie to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action. Look - I agree that neither word is an exact fit, but I think this is a misunderstanding of slavery at large, and a view exclusively through the lens of European slavery, and slavery in the colonies (ex: islands and the US). Historically, slavery is a really complicated thing, and almost every society had some form of forced labor, performed by low tier members of the society - the details of which vary dramatically. Slavery (outside the narrow scope of the US history of it) is absolutely not "tied to a specific person or entity that owns you and controls your every action". Ex - Pre-colonial native american tribes had all sorts of forms of slavery, everything from "we're going to sacrifice you and then eat you" to "you have been captured to fill the role of the warrior you killed in battle". In the later case, they were often given duties and responsibilities markedly similar to the person they replaced, and in some cases end up formally adopted by the tribe in question. Further - looks at places like India, where african slaves were brought over not for manual labor, but for military use (dating as far back as the 12th century). That enabled them far greater social mobility. Just take a look at cultures like the Siddi - West coast african slaves who rose to become rulers in India. Basically - ditch the high school view of slavery - it's all the rage in the media right now because it's a wonderfully divisive topic in the US, and diverts attention from other serious political matters. But historically - it's very euro/us-centric in tone (and not even all that accurate within those cultures...).