Slavery: In or out ?

[doc_bean]

I haven't seen a thread on this, but it's really something I'm wondering about. A lot of games about the era avoid the issue of (black) slaves. Now TW games have included slavery in the past, but considering the context, it wasn't really a sensitive issue. Slavery in this period is.

[pevergreen]

I think it will be included. I dont think CA should shy away from history purely because it wasnt nice.

[uanime5]

I think it should be included. Allowing a faction to take part in the slave trade would help explain why it occured (profit and sugar), its risks (mutiny, mass lose of profit if delayed), and why it ended (cheaper sugar elsewhere, public objections).

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't mind if it's just treated as a trade resource (i.e. own a province with the resource, and you get income from it), as the micromanagement of a complex slave market wouldn't be too interesting gameplay anyway IMHO.

[Geoffrey S]

I'll just quote myself:

But how relevant was slavetrade really? It mainly functioned in the trade triangle of Europe-Africa-Americas as a way of balancing the costs, and certainly in this period wasn't a factor of major importance economically or politically. It would be best represented as general trade I think.

[Slavery is] far less important in the eighteenth century than the seventeenth. The majority of trade money was made by bringing various finished products to colonies (for instance, in Indonesia or India), selling them for native raw materials such as spices and selling them for a high price in Europe. And even then, intercontinental trade was financially far less important than intracontinental trade; slave trade even less so. A in hindsight morally explosive trade was financially far less important than the disproportionate amount of later literature would imply.

[Mithradates]

I agree it shouldnt be left out purely because its not something to be proud of, however it should not either be over emphasized in a way which could be ahistorical and possibly distasteful.

[mkirchner]

it is already in the game, in M2TW there are slave resources in Crimea and near Arguin (might be more). You can choose to place a merchant on the square and Voila you are a slve trader.

[Zenicetus]

Right, it's in M2TW but there's more emotional distance and separation in time from that period. Slavery in the Empire:TW period still has political and social repercussions today; especially in America, the Caribbean and South America. So it's a little more sensitive.

But I think it could still be handled as an abstract economic resource, for the sake of historical accuracy. You might even be able to take the high moral ground as a set of house rules. Avoid indulging in it, and go after factions that profit heavily from slave trading. That shouldn't be the main focus of the game, but it might be an interesting variation for one time through the campaign.

[fenir]

Actually the Slave trade was very profitible.
You only have to read the profits and revenues obtained in government records to see that.
The whole reason men and ships where invested in the trade, was because of the profit, espeically the profit to the african kingdoms that supplied the slaves to the "factories", which in turn collected them and supplied them to the ships. Which in turn, supplied them to the new world. Even ex-slaves owned slaves.
Then there is the secondary profit.
Slave labour on the sugar cane plantations.
Slavery itself, was a massive industry. Employing tens of thousands of people, these things we already know.

But slavely did not end with the halting of african slaves across the atlantic. After The British Empire used the Royal Navy, which alone in the world at the time, was the only power capable of enforcing the no slavery law on the high seas.
Slavery has been, and is, continous even today.

Slavery itself was bascially a means in many cultures, including european, in which the poor can pay a debt to which they have legally incurred. And or, a means to which those that are not so well off, can gain food shelter and protection of a more well off person. It's a kinda of social welfare program. This of course has long been demonised to the wants and needs of the bleeding hearts and alarmists.
And of course, it is a means of destorying another nations means of fighting you in the old days.
But slavery existed in europe in the 1800's, usually in a form of un paid debt, the poor and "down on luck", could work their debt off.

The main reason african slavery is most highlighted today, is because it was treated with the same ideas as production, and mass involvement that came about due to the industrial revolution. New thinking, was applied to the application of everything else. Which to some made sense, and others found wanting in the application of the "human condition", within the context of the 18th-19th century thought.

The main stream european application of slavery in it's context should be one of applying a means for the social caretaking of the poor.
In which the well off supplied food and shelter to those most in need. But as I pointed out, it went further than this in the new age thinking of the time.

Why should it be included?
In many cultures, Christian and Islam, hindu, and so on... there are actually laws that were laid down to how an owner, and a slave must treat each other. And the requirements on an owner, of owning a slave.
Many nations, Romans, Hellenes et cetera... all had laws protecting the rights of slaves, (yes, strange as it may seem, slaves had rights). And slaves had a right, to buy themselves, out of slavery, and many did. And many also sold themselves into slavery as a means of escaping poverty.
But in all honesty, no one today was involved in any part of the slave trade, anyones "feelings" twhinged by the thought of this trade in the context of inclusion within a game to mimick the trade of these times, or claims to be of the slave trade though family, needs to get a grip, no one today has committed these acts, well no one here i hope. And after ~200 years since the trade was abolished, no one here can know what it was like, nor claim to understand something they have not been part of. The term used is a bleeding heart, or trying to get something for nothing. So grandstanding for the moral high ground, is just that, grandstanding to make yourself look good.

It is a part of history, (it has passed), and a large part of history to nearly everyone, who at some point has had family in slavery, or bondage as it was known, or has been invloved in such.
For example, no one with a european family, unless you are of noble line, can claim that they have not had a family memeber as a slave at some point in history.
Because most of europe was a slave to the protection of a lord. As most worked without pay in respect to being given shelter, food, and protection. Most people as some point, fell into debt, and then the debt owed, was taken in service.
So in essence and fact, Slavery/bondage.
Lords of the manor in the British iles, in the Medieval period, had slaves. There own people, bonded servants. The French were still technical slaves up until the French Revolutions in the late 1700's.

So should it be in? Hell yes, we have just had M2TW with slavery, in which that would include most of us european families as being slaves. We have RTW with slavery, which would also include most of us of european hertige, so why are we now, shrinking from a historical part for the next game?
You are saying in context, it's ok to enslave a white person, but not a black one? There is an ugly word for that kind of thinking.
So lets be honest, lets represent the game as it should be, within it's historical context. CA has always done it as an abstract trade resource, I see no problem doing the same.

Post scriptio: There were also white slaves in Amercia, Europe, Middle East, Africa... in the time period too. So do we keep playing politics, or do we finally put the catch cry to bed with the rest of history, and treat it the same?
After all, I wager everyone here was born a freeman?
And PLEASE, remember.....Everyone was Involved, Africans, Europeans, Arabs, New World indians, all traded slaves, Kept Slaves, and Used Slaves. So Everyone back then was guilty, not just white people like many claim. But none of us were involved, SO please, No trying to guilty trip people in to someone else's wrongs, BY OUR STANDARDS TODAY.

fenir

[Fate]

Amen fenir, amen.

[IsItStillThere]

IN M2TW, slaves were treated as a trade good. They were one of, what, 20 different goods? I can't see how leaving out one of them could hurt the game in the slightest.

Besides, there was never an attempt to represent every important trade good in the game. Some get in, some are left out. If leaving out one of them prevents hurting someone's sensibilities, then why not??

[uanime5]

You made some good points fenir, although I would like to point out that the poor were not treated much better than slaves during the slave trade. At the time of the slave trade in England men were abducted and forced to work in the Navy, children were sent up chimneys to clean them, and people worked in factories and sweatshops for very little money.

Life was bad for all people in Europe.

[Fisherking]

In one interview I read they said it would be in but you wouldn't be able to exactly traffic in slaves...

I don't know exactly how it will be implemented or what to make of it, but it was real and existed for what it is worth...Ignoring it because it is not PC is silly as is making too big a deal of it being in a game.

[joe4iz]

I thought I read that slavery was going to be in on one of the official threads. To ignore it would be criminal, as Africa was drained of certain populations areas. Unfortunately, the area still feels the effects of that today.

Talk about the original brain drain.

[Vuk]

It would stupid and inaccurate not to include it. Slavery was something common during the time, and shouldn't be ignored, as it plays a large part on history. Before this time, when white and West Coast Africans didn't have contact, the whites ran a thriving slave trade of other white, and the black ran a thriving slave trade of other blacks. What happened is that whites found that blacks could work better in the fields of Southern places, so they started buying large amounts of black slaves.
The point is that it happened to whites, black, orientals, etc (in other words, men(as in man kind, not the gender)), and it is a travesty to humanity, not to the black race. By excluding it, because of the evil things that happened to blacks, you are putting a price on human life and sufferring when other races endured the same thing. What about the blacks who were bought by other blacks? Is their suffering any less important? And what about the whites who were enslaved throughout history? Is their suffering any less important?

The point is that it is an unfair institution that mankind has used to abuse members of its own species for thousands of years, and it would be ridiculous not to include it. (esp since it played such an important role during the time of which we are speaking). In RTW and M2TW you could trade slaves, was that any worse? Not at all. When playing M2TW, I never traded in slaves, as my moral values do not support slavery. Giving the player the option to (such as in M2TW), gives the player the ability to set himself on a moral highground above the other Nations. (ie, gives the player the ability to be civilised when those around him are not, and maybe even the ability to try and civilise his neighbors through arms )
The only way people can better themselves now is to learn from mistakes made in the past. I think slavery is one of history's most grave mistakes.
I will be insulted if they do not include the Irish slave trade. (I'm part Irish you see)
Vuk

[magnum]

I believe both that it should be in the game and that CA will have it in game. I don't imagine that CA would leave it out. However, I don't believe that they will make it a major part of the economic aspects of the game.

Using current MTW2 game mechanics, I'd imagine that CA would have slavery as a resource that can be exploited (via merchants). In addition, they could also include various triggers, both in General/Character traits and in world events (slave revolt, uprising, etc) that can occur if a player/faction decide to use slave recources.

[MansaSakura]

I'm black and I hope they do put it in. However, if they put slavery in (and I emphatically think they should...can't have a united states without slavery) they should include the African empires and kingdoms in the game as well. The Ashanti Empire was really important in that respect. There's no excuse to exclude the Ashanti (who beat the british in a war and dealt with virtually all major sea powers of the period) or slavery. Let's keep it historically accurate. Also...can we get some blood in this one. PLEASE!!!!

[skuzzy]

Yes... Merchant with "slave trader" as trait is sufficient. It would be ridiculous to make assertions as to towns that have displayed on the main page "3.221 slaves per white landowner" Slavery was an economic resource just like rum was at the time... included in the same trade triangle. Should we highlight rum more? Although in general for resources I would like you to have to place x amount into merchant ships and try to have them sail across the Atlantic without being owned by some Man-O-Wars and galleons. That would be nice to put a little more emphasis on things other than moving armies around.