3 ms·

Cultural? With the same excuse you could call keeping black people as slaves or treating women as second rate citizens "cultural". Excluding gay people from ma

• einhverfr 14y ago
  Strangely the same sort of cultural arrogance that lead to praising slavery in many parts of the US as good for black people is behind this sort of global campaign. Just think of the number of Africans who would have grown up never knowing about Christ, or never seeing the marvels of the New World if it were not for slavery! Yes there were people defending slavery at the time in precisely these terms. So I think that issue works out the exact opposite way you say. Indeed, in cases where slavery is primarily endogenous (say, ancient Greece or Rome, or even Viking-age Scandinavia), slaves tend to have some legal rights, and some freedoms because it functions as a bit of a safety net, and there are political incentives to free slaves. For example in those three cultures (Greece/Rome/Viking-age Scandinavia), freed slaves formed important sources of political and economic support. Dred Scott v. Sanford ensured in he US that such a solution could not exist here. So slavery in the new world was uniquely evil and oppressive. One can defend many other systems of slavery in the world throughout history, but certainly not that one. Indeed the only second-person perspective defence that was made was that we were so much better than the Africans that it was better to be a slave on a plantation in Virginia than free in Senegal. That same arrogance is, once again, behind this today. Heck, I won't even defend the system of prison labor/slavery we have in the US today because I think that's beyond defence. But I won't just say "we're labelling it slavery and therefore it's evil." So in New Guinea there is an indigenous tribe called the Sambia. In this tribe you can't become a man unless you go through a coming of age ceremony where you are given a nosebleed by having a tooth of a wild animal shoved in your nose (this is to drain feminine influences, and remove childhood), and where you are required to fellate a tribal elder. Of course this happens at an age roughly similar to adolescence. Now obviously if this happened in NYC, we'd call this sexual predation, and try to send people to jail for life. But are you saying that we need to insure that if indigenous children don't want to go through such rituals that they have a right to be left alone?
  • Tichy 14y ago
    Problem: slaves don't chose to be slaves. As for the indigenous tribe, at least I am not sure that we shouldn't interfere if those kids don't want to go through those rituals. What is the rationale for not interfering - preserving cultural diversity/turning the rainforest into a museum? What about a sect that moves to an isolated island and comes up with the tradition that girls first sexual act has to be with the sect leader (such things actually happened)? Why should they be treated differently than some indigenous tribe?
    • einhverfr 14y ago
      >slaves don't chose to be slaves. That's not always true with endogenous slavery though. Very often times people end up as slaves, selling themselves into slavery in order to avoid starvation. The constant turnover between free and slave in these systems curbs the worst abuses. For example, in Rome, it was illegal for a father to sell a son into slavery more than three times. After that, I suppose, it was the father's turn...... in these systems typically slaves have some level of personal autonomy, and there is pressure to free them. In Rome for example, freed slaves were adopted into the extended family of the former master, thus providing legal, political, and economic support for the great Senatorial families. This meant paradoxically that slavery could actually be a means of social advancement. So I wouldn't say that was always true. In many of these societies, then, prisoners of war end up being a secondary source of slaves but they end up with the protections of the debt-slaves, again with the pressure to free. One more thing that surprised me about the Roman example was this: Slaves could join professional associations (sort of proto-Guilds) and these associations usually handled burials of their members and the like. Many of these organizations actually had rules adopted for what happens if a member was a slave and the master refuses to delver the body for burial. So slavery is a complex thing, and a lot of blanket statements don't necessarily work. Yes, a lot of slaves in Greece, Rome, etc. did choose to be slaves because it was better than the alternative, which was being destitute. Also keep in mind that in most of these places, there is no strong central prosecutorial authority. Your family is supposed to prosecute crimes on your behalf. So if you were in ancient Rome, destitute and without extended family, you really were better off selling yourself into slavery. As for the indigenous tribe, at least I am not sure that we shouldn't interfere if those kids don't want to go through those rituals. A sense of humility, that our culture doesn't necessarily have more answers than theirs, and that we don't really understand what we are messing with.