Judging History (branch off from election thread)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry, that's just factually incorrect. Indentured servitude was a fixed-term system of debt/obligation and labor; selling yourself into slavery (not uncommon in ancient Rome and the Hellenic city-states) was a permanent change in status (in other words, you made yourself another person's property, until either death or emancipation).

The fact that you might sell yourself voluntarily has no bearing on whether or not it was slavery.

And what you are describing is indentured servitude. From the wiki links you just posted:
Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture.

What you said:
Can't feed your family? Sell yourself into slavery as a tutor, hang out with some rich dude's kids for a decade or so, expect an early emancipation and a new patron at the end.


Slavery is not willing labor, you do not sell yourself into slavery. Someone must force you into slavery. That's how it works. Otherwise all capitalistic labor is a form of slavery (get out of here Commies). In slavery, there is no agreement to work, there is no fixed period of time, there is no choice in the matter to begin with.


EDIT: The very first sentence of the wiki article for slavery you posted:
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.

The servants may be treated as property under the Roman system, but they were never forced to work to begin with. They willingly accepted the work.

[Lemur]

a fixed period of time

That's the key bit. In the tutor scenario I described, which was far from uncommon, the would-be tutor sold himself in the hopes that he would be emancipated after a period of good service, but it was unheard-of for such a provision to be put in writing, or agreed-upon at the time of sale.

Slavery is not willing labor, you do not sell yourself into slavery. Someone must force you into slavery. That's how it works.

That it how it often worked, but not the only way. Look, at its heart, slavery means becoming another person's property. Completely. That is what "slave" means, no more, no less. Whether you were taken off a battlefield in Gaul or sold yourself to the highest bidder in Athens, the legal status was the same. Slave.

Equating it with indentured servitude is just incorrect. Sorry. There are similarities, but they are not the same thing. An indentured servant was still a citizen; a slave was not. An indentured servant had a guaranteed time when service would end; a slave did not. An indentured servant could own property, sue and enter into contracts; a slave could not. Killing an indentured servant was generally regarded as murder; killing a slave was bad manners.

There are some similarities, but more differences.

-edit-

Could some kind BR mod split the Abe Lincoln/George Washington/Slavery bit off into a new thread? I fear we have wandered far from the 2012 campaign. Not that I mind, I just have a compulsively neat streak ...

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's the key bit. In the tutor scenario I described, which was far from uncommon, the would-be tutor sold himself in the hopes that he would be emancipated after a period of good service, but it was unheard-of for such a provision to be put in writing, or agreed-upon at the time of sale.

The would be tutor still willingly accepted the compact. He did not put in writing the terms and conditions because that was not "kosher" at the time, but he nevertheless was the one saying "I will work for you in return for food and shelter." Not forced. Not slavery. That's not my personal definition, that's the definition from the wiki article (great authority, I know).

Look, at its heart, slavery means becoming another person's property. Completely. That is what "slave" means, no more, no less. Whether you were taken off a battlefield in Gaul or sold yourself to the highest bidder in Athens, the legal status was the same. Slave.

No, this is too simplistic of a definition for slavery. Under this definition, we are all someones slaves because while we are under their employment, the boss/company owns our body. But we are not slaves to our corporate bosses, because our labor is not forced. We may have to change our lifestyle and no longer control what we do to ourselves (ex: random drug tests force you to stop smoking pot in your free time), but we signed up for it willingly. That means we are not slaves. Even if we sign a contract where we are not allowed to leave on such a short notice, we are not slaves. Are police and firefighters slaves because it is illegal to strike and leave the job while on the clock?

Equating it with indentured servitude is just incorrect. Sorry. There are similarities, but they are not the same thing. An indentured servant was still a citizen; a slave was not. An indentured servant had a guaranteed time when service ends; a slave did not. An indentured servant could own property, sue and enter into contracts; a slave could not.

The classification of servitude does not depend on their standing within society, it depends on the conditions of the labor agreement. AKA Did both parties agree or not?


I'm sorry. But your definition is wrong and is not matching up with the articles you yourself provided.