3 ms·

> ...it is also the logical and moral equivalent of a defense of slavery on the grounds that it would be extremely disruptive to abolish it in a society that is

> ...it is also the logical and moral equivalent of a defense of slavery on the grounds that it would be extremely disruptive to abolish it in a society that is organised around its existence. If slavery is structured such that the interests are aligned well enough to politically constrain abuses, yes, and I would argue it would be a defence for the sorts of slavery that existed in the ancient world. However, regarding the American experience and the intercontinental slave trade, this wasn't the case. You can't take a group of people, subject them to total oppression with nobody to stand up for them, and even insist that if they are freed, their children, born in freedom can never be citizens. The difference is that in Rome, slavery served a vital social function and the abuses could be constrained because slaves very often had citizen family. In the US, it served merely an economic function and had no alignment of interests. Livy talks about the controversy concerning the rule in the Twelve Tables that a father could not sell a son into slavery more than three times. Such a non-permanent slavery is not at all comparable to what we saw in American history. I think the key thing is, one important aspect of retirement with the kids is that it is an important way by which interests are aligned across generations. Parents are far more invested in their children's success, for example. Taking that away due to a notion that it is unfair to some people is a problem.

maxerickson 13y ago
You're pretending that Rome didn't make war to capture slaves. (Or captured hundreds of thousands of slaves as a result of conquest; phrase it however you like and it still looks pretty awful)
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > You're pretending that Rome didn't make war to capture slaves. There were a critical mass of Roman slaves, and this meant a strong set of social institutions to support feeing them. That there were POW slaves doesn't undermine that.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    POW is a loaded term and really doesn't in any way apply to someone who was abducted and taken as a slave. Even just the English phrase "prisoner of war" implies the ongoing servitude was somehow linked to the war, when really it was linked to the owners ability and desire to keep the person captive.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      It isn't less loaded than an American, in the stream of American history calling the system of servitude in Rome "slavery" as if it is the same thing as the American slave trade. My point is, servitude that can't be just walked away from (whether it was entered into initially voluntarily or not) covers a huge spectrum of institutions and these have a wide variety in terms of capacity for abuse. A system which takes people from another continent, frees very few of them, and has essentially no rights to them (and few rights to freed slaves or their descendants) is ripe for abuse in a way that "revolving door slavery" of the sort the Romans had was not. Several important points about Roman slavery are worth repeating: 1. The largest source of Roman slaves (at least from the surveys I have looked at) appear to have been debt slaves -- people being sold into slavery by their parents or selling themselves into slavery to pay debts. 2. Children of freed slaves were citizens (the United States, OTOH settled the question with a "no" in Dred Scott v. Sanford, categorically barring not only slaves like the petitioner, but also the descendants of freed slaves, from citizenship status). 3. Freedom was a transformation, not a total release from, the mutual obligations to the former owner. Consequently, freed men in Rome were an important source of political support, and a fairly large percentage of slaves could expect freedom in their lifetimes. 4. The revolving door had a tendency to revolve so fast that at one point Rome restricted the practice of selling one's children repeatedly into slavery, by insisting that if a father sold his son into slavery three times, the son would be emancipated from the control of the father. Livy mentions this was very controversial. As for prisoners of war, what you have to understand is that if captured (whether a combatant or not) there were very few legal rights one had. That meant effectively that slavery, compared to freedom without family, actually meant some degree of protection. This protection would not go away on freedom, but neither would an obligation to support politically and otherwise the former master. This meant, effectively, that slavery was an institution by which prisoners of war achieved a degree of protection otherwise not available and, should they later be freed, a degree of economic support.
Lazare 13y ago
I said "And the civil rights movement was deeply socially disruptive for the Jim Crow South, just as the abolition of slavery was deeply socially disruptive for the antebellum South even earlier." And you replied "If slavery is structured such that the interests are aligned well enough to politically constrain abuses..." Well, yes. A situation which clearly did not pertain in the specific examples I gave, rendering the rest of your comment irrelevant. And if the oppression of gays in Russia was structured in a way that wasn't brutal, cruel, and a denial of basic human rights, it wouldn't be so terrible...and if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass when they hopped. (I'm not going to even touch on your characterization of slavery in Rome, since it just doesn't matter. Your argument is that slavery was (somehow!) good for the Roman slaves, but unless you want to argue that the oppression gays are currently experiencing in Russia is somehow good for them too (please, I'd love to hear it!), then this entire example is a pointless derailment. Which is why, incidentally, I was careful to specify slavery in the antebellum south, and not slavery in general. I am comparing two—three counting Jim Crow—situations that are unambiguously bad for the victims, and I think you wouldn't be so desperate to talk about Rome if you didn't realize this.) TL;DR: You managed to write an awful lot while very carefully avoiding every point I made. My troll-o-meter is starting to flash...
- einhverfr 13y ago
  No I didn't avoid it. Slavery in the South was an inter-group problem and because the groups were fully static over generations, it's properly a place for intergroup pressure. It is an argument to be cautious though and I think reconstruction failed because it was orchestrated on the plans of industrialist Northerners rather than those who had direct personal experience with what was going on. If Sherman's 40 acres and a mule plan had been implemented race would be different in America today.

maxerickson 13y ago

You're pretending that Rome didn't make war to capture slaves. (Or captured hundreds of thousands of slaves as a result of conquest; phrase it however you like and it still looks pretty awful)

einhverfr 13y ago
> You're pretending that Rome didn't make war to capture slaves. There were a critical mass of Roman slaves, and this meant a strong set of social institutions to support feeing them. That there were POW slaves doesn't undermine that.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  POW is a loaded term and really doesn't in any way apply to someone who was abducted and taken as a slave. Even just the English phrase "prisoner of war" implies the ongoing servitude was somehow linked to the war, when really it was linked to the owners ability and desire to keep the person captive.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    It isn't less loaded than an American, in the stream of American history calling the system of servitude in Rome "slavery" as if it is the same thing as the American slave trade. My point is, servitude that can't be just walked away from (whether it was entered into initially voluntarily or not) covers a huge spectrum of institutions and these have a wide variety in terms of capacity for abuse. A system which takes people from another continent, frees very few of them, and has essentially no rights to them (and few rights to freed slaves or their descendants) is ripe for abuse in a way that "revolving door slavery" of the sort the Romans had was not. Several important points about Roman slavery are worth repeating: 1. The largest source of Roman slaves (at least from the surveys I have looked at) appear to have been debt slaves -- people being sold into slavery by their parents or selling themselves into slavery to pay debts. 2. Children of freed slaves were citizens (the United States, OTOH settled the question with a "no" in Dred Scott v. Sanford, categorically barring not only slaves like the petitioner, but also the descendants of freed slaves, from citizenship status). 3. Freedom was a transformation, not a total release from, the mutual obligations to the former owner. Consequently, freed men in Rome were an important source of political support, and a fairly large percentage of slaves could expect freedom in their lifetimes. 4. The revolving door had a tendency to revolve so fast that at one point Rome restricted the practice of selling one's children repeatedly into slavery, by insisting that if a father sold his son into slavery three times, the son would be emancipated from the control of the father. Livy mentions this was very controversial. As for prisoners of war, what you have to understand is that if captured (whether a combatant or not) there were very few legal rights one had. That meant effectively that slavery, compared to freedom without family, actually meant some degree of protection. This protection would not go away on freedom, but neither would an obligation to support politically and otherwise the former master. This meant, effectively, that slavery was an institution by which prisoners of war achieved a degree of protection otherwise not available and, should they later be freed, a degree of economic support.

Lazare 13y ago

I said "And the civil rights movement was deeply socially disruptive for the Jim Crow South, just as the abolition of slavery was deeply socially disruptive for the antebellum South even earlier." And you replied "If slavery is structured such that the interests are aligned well enough to politically constrain abuses..." Well, yes. A situation which clearly did not pertain in the specific examples I gave, rendering the rest of your comment irrelevant. And if the oppression of gays in Russia was structured in a way that wasn't brutal, cruel, and a denial of basic human rights, it wouldn't be so terrible...and if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass when they hopped. (I'm not going to even touch on your characterization of slavery in Rome, since it just doesn't matter. Your argument is that slavery was (somehow!) good for the Roman slaves, but unless you want to argue that the oppression gays are currently experiencing in Russia is somehow good for them too (please, I'd love to hear it!), then this entire example is a pointless derailment. Which is why, incidentally, I was careful to specify slavery in the antebellum south, and not slavery in general. I am comparing two—three counting Jim Crow—situations that are unambiguously bad for the victims, and I think you wouldn't be so desperate to talk about Rome if you didn't realize this.) TL;DR: You managed to write an awful lot while very carefully avoiding every point I made. My troll-o-meter is starting to flash...

einhverfr 13y ago
No I didn't avoid it. Slavery in the South was an inter-group problem and because the groups were fully static over generations, it's properly a place for intergroup pressure. It is an argument to be cautious though and I think reconstruction failed because it was orchestrated on the plans of industrialist Northerners rather than those who had direct personal experience with what was going on. If Sherman's 40 acres and a mule plan had been implemented race would be different in America today.