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.

[Lord Zimoa of Flanders]

Indeed, a black page in our colonising heritage, but a page of history nevertheless. History should not be left out only because it looks bad in modern days, if that becomes a guidance it is very close to censorship.

LZ

[Odin]

It should be in unless there is some legal restriction (IE: Nazi depictions in WWII games sold in germany)

[Bob the Insane]

They abstracted slavery in RTW so I don't see why they would not in ETW...

[Zenicetus]

Well, it won't be possible for a player using a European faction to settle America without pushing the native tribes off their territory. It will be graphic and explicit too... you'll be actively killing them in battle.

So if that is in the game, then I don't see how they can leave out slavery. It will probably be shown as an abstact gathered resource, the way it's been done in the current TW games.

[Geoffrey S]

I agree it shouldn't be left out for pc reasons, but I'm not convinced the economic benefits were so great that the slave trade should be represented heavily. Morally reprehensible it was, but it was also playing a smaller and smaller part in the transatlantic economy and wasn't the huge benefit to European economies it has on occasion been made out to be. Hence in this case I wouldn't be that bothered if it were left out or simply included in general transatlantic trade.

[doc_bean]

I agree it shouldn't be left out for pc reasons, but I'm not convinced the economic benefits were so great that the slave trade should be represented heavily. Morally reprehensible it was, but it was also playing a smaller and smaller part in the transatlantic economy and wasn't the huge benefit to European economies it has on occasion been made out to be. Hence in this case I wouldn't be that bothered if it were left out or simply included in general transatlantic trade.

While slave trade might not have been so important anymore, slavery itself was common enough and with it there came several slave rebellions (I believe haiti was founded after a succesful slave rebellion around 1800). Rebellions (and slave revellions) have been pretty common in TW games, but I wonder if they'll have your all white army fight an all black army, and what the generals' speech would be before such a battle.

Killing natives americans is still pretty PC for some reason, but anything to do with slavery is usually avoided in games.

[ReiseReise]

Slavery should be treated as any other trade resource. That is essentially what slaves were, a resource to be collected and traded. We already have precedents for this - RTW didn't distinguish between free men and slaves in city management or other manners despite slavery being a widespread and integral part of society across cultures and regions. M2TW only glosses over the subject with a few slave resources in the Crimea and completely ignores the massive medieval slaving campaigns during the time, which depleted entire regions of their inhabitants and gave us the very word 'slave' (from 'Slav').
Also, the population loss and money gained from sacking or exterminating a city is in large part due to slaves being taken. Again, CA didn't elaborate on this fact in previous games.
Having any in depth management doesn't even need to be debated, it won't be included. It would be unusually sadistic and beyond the scope and theme of the game - war.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Iirc CA stated that slavery will be included in the way of trade resources, but nothing more in deep.

[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.

[Mikeus Caesar]

I can hear the black community screaming about being victimised as i read this thread.

Honestly, get over it. It was a terrible thing, but it doesn't affect you, and it's not like this game will be glorifying it. It will just be depicting history for what it was - horrid.

[Geoffrey S]

I can hear the black community screaming about being victimised as i read this thread.

Honestly, get over it. It was a terrible thing, but it doesn't affect you, and it's not like this game will be glorifying it. It will just be depicting history for what it was - horrid.

Nobody's suggesting such a thing, and to be honest, if anything TW glorifies the nasty parts of history (such as, wiping out the native indians). But I can't say I care.

[highlanddave]

One point I would like to make is that blacks were not the only people hurt by being indentured or put into slavery.

The state I live in, Georgia USA, was colonized as Australia was later on as a repository of unwanted rif-raf, prisoners and indentured servants. Indentured white servants were very well known and used even in northern states. People sold themselves or were sold for a specific time period. Some people may never had the ability to pay off their debt and may very well have remained indentured (a slave) for life.

I echo another person here who said that slavery was in use by all people around the globe. A little known fact from my state is that when the Cherokee moved to Oklahoma they took their slaves with them. The leader of the tribe of the Cherokee, Mr. McIntosh, was the largest owner of slaves in the state.

[Belgolas]

I think it will be in.

[Csargo]

I think it'll be in, if it's been in other TW games. Though I never noticed slave trading in M2TW, I did in Rome

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I'm not quite sure really. I do have my doubts that it will be in though - the slave trades of the 18th century may be a little too near to the present day, unlike those of the Medieval and Classical period.

On the other hand though, I do believe that they should be in, and perhaps they could even be a detailed part of the game. Slave revolts for example and civil wars over the sensitive matter could add more depth to the overall player experience. I'm not quite sure if any large events like this happened in the timeframe though.

[Marshal Murat]

I think that slavery should be included in the game because it was a historical part of European and American history.
1. There should be the 'Ulster Plantations'
2. Slavery in the Caribbean and Americas. Without slaves to work the land, there wouldn't be as much cotton, sugar, or raw material production which would help supply the European economy. I think that they should, unfortunately, be treated as any other trade commodity, because that's what they were.

[Belgolas]

Also it is a game. This souldn't be considered to not be in. Slavery was a huge part back then.

[Derfasciti]

It should definately be in the game but I fear CA might shy way from it for political correctness' sake.