5 ms·

I can't for the life of me figure out why the headline writer put the word 'slaves' in quotes.

sologoub 11y ago
Probably because they were technically convicts from governments point of view, instead of outright slaves or someones property. I'm a bit surprised by 1954 as the date, since it's pretty far from the original purges in the 30s, but not at all surprised by the find. The disappearances and summary judgements, resulting in either executions or the slow rot of the labor camps, are well documented. A person I know from that same town found a German gun folded in oiled cloth in his parents' ceiling when he was renovating. The building was built by German POWs.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  they were technically convicts from governments point of view This isn't entirely true. The work camps were powered by convicts, but also by putatively free exiles who had been sent there for a variety of reasons. And in some cases, convicts who had completed their sentences were technically freed, but not allowed to leave the camps anyway. Source: I'm currently reading "Gulag: A History" by Anne Applebaum. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/224379.Gulag https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/224379.Gulag
- gcv 11y ago
  A huge number of soldiers returning from the war had been handed 25-year (in most cases equivalent to life-long) sentences under the 58th article of the Soviet penal code (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58_(RSFSR_Penal_Code) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58_(RSFSR_Penal_Code) — the Soviet Union officially had no political prisoners, only criminals). For the most part, their crime was contact with other Allied troops, so it was easy to accuse them of contact with the West, and eliminate any dangerous ideas they could have brought into the bright nation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the heaven of the working man. These people would have been serving their sentences through the 1950s, and Khruschev's rehabilitation policies (far from popular in the Politburo) did not start until 1956.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
    I know it was called the glorious proletariat, but I was wondering if the working men, proles, brought it about. I guess they didn't, but I am wondering how it all happened.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  They deported loads of people from occupied territories after end of war and releasing them only started around that time.
M8 11y ago
Because they were prisoners? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_State...
- cushychicken 11y ago
  And what, apart from legal approval, is morally or materially different about forcing a prisoner to work and forcing a free citizen to work?
  - lqdc13 11y ago
    What, apart from legal approval is morally or materially different from performing capital punishment on convicted murderers and performing capital punishment on a free citizen? The point is there is a spectrum/grey line.
  - ars 11y ago
    I find it pretty disturbing that you can't tell the difference. That's a rather serious moral failing on your part.
    - cushychicken 11y ago
      Sweet! Value judgments on the internet!
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Prisoners have been one of the most common types of slaves in history. And one of the few explicitly tolerated as such in places that like to claim they've abolished slavery. [0] [0] See, e.g., US Constitution, Amendment XIII
jader201 11y ago
The article seems to refer to them as "prisoners" more often than "slaves", so this may be why (and the article is more sensational using "slaves" in the title vs. "prisoners").
unics 11y ago
I understand that it can be subjective and will assume the writers audience might find the context sensitive. In this case it seems to fit well in my opinion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
topynate 11y ago
I understand your sentiment completely – they were slaves and that crime should be recognised. The reason the headline has the word in quotes is that it's quoting their own statement about themselves: quote quotes, not scare quotes.
jvm 11y ago
My guess it that the word "slavery" usually implies chattel slavery, whereas these people were serving sentences of penal servitude. Others have pointed this out, but penal servitude is alive and well in the US prison system as well [1] and it's not common to use the word slavery for that. Maybe they should, but it is arguably a different concept from chattel slavery. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_State...
- meatysnapper 11y ago
  Hooray prison-industrial complex :(
chc 11y ago
I think that's because it's literally quoting the letter-writers' description of themselves.

Probably because they were technically convicts from governments point of view, instead of outright slaves or someones property. I'm a bit surprised by 1954 as the date, since it's pretty far from the original purges in the 30s, but not at all surprised by the find. The disappearances and summary judgements, resulting in either executions or the slow rot of the labor camps, are well documented. A person I know from that same town found a German gun folded in oiled cloth in his parents' ceiling when he was renovating. The building was built by German POWs.

CWuestefeld 11y ago
they were technically convicts from governments point of view This isn't entirely true. The work camps were powered by convicts, but also by putatively free exiles who had been sent there for a variety of reasons. And in some cases, convicts who had completed their sentences were technically freed, but not allowed to leave the camps anyway. Source: I'm currently reading "Gulag: A History" by Anne Applebaum. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/224379.Gulag https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/224379.Gulag
gcv 11y ago
A huge number of soldiers returning from the war had been handed 25-year (in most cases equivalent to life-long) sentences under the 58th article of the Soviet penal code (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58_(RSFSR_Penal_Code) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58_(RSFSR_Penal_Code) — the Soviet Union officially had no political prisoners, only criminals). For the most part, their crime was contact with other Allied troops, so it was easy to accuse them of contact with the West, and eliminate any dangerous ideas they could have brought into the bright nation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the heaven of the working man. These people would have been serving their sentences through the 1950s, and Khruschev's rehabilitation policies (far from popular in the Politburo) did not start until 1956.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
  I know it was called the glorious proletariat, but I was wondering if the working men, proles, brought it about. I guess they didn't, but I am wondering how it all happened.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
They deported loads of people from occupied territories after end of war and releasing them only started around that time.

M8 11y ago

Because they were prisoners? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_State...

cushychicken 11y ago
And what, apart from legal approval, is morally or materially different about forcing a prisoner to work and forcing a free citizen to work?
- lqdc13 11y ago
  What, apart from legal approval is morally or materially different from performing capital punishment on convicted murderers and performing capital punishment on a free citizen? The point is there is a spectrum/grey line.
- ars 11y ago
  I find it pretty disturbing that you can't tell the difference. That's a rather serious moral failing on your part.
  - cushychicken 11y ago
    Sweet! Value judgments on the internet!
dragonwriter 11y ago
Prisoners have been one of the most common types of slaves in history. And one of the few explicitly tolerated as such in places that like to claim they've abolished slavery. [0] [0] See, e.g., US Constitution, Amendment XIII

jader201 11y ago

The article seems to refer to them as "prisoners" more often than "slaves", so this may be why (and the article is more sensational using "slaves" in the title vs. "prisoners").

unics 11y ago

I understand that it can be subjective and will assume the writers audience might find the context sensitive. In this case it seems to fit well in my opinion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

topynate 11y ago

I understand your sentiment completely – they were slaves and that crime should be recognised. The reason the headline has the word in quotes is that it's quoting their own statement about themselves: quote quotes, not scare quotes.

jvm 11y ago

My guess it that the word "slavery" usually implies chattel slavery, whereas these people were serving sentences of penal servitude. Others have pointed this out, but penal servitude is alive and well in the US prison system as well [1] and it's not common to use the word slavery for that. Maybe they should, but it is arguably a different concept from chattel slavery. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_State...

meatysnapper 11y ago
Hooray prison-industrial complex :(

chc 11y ago

I think that's because it's literally quoting the letter-writers' description of themselves.