My theory on slaves

[bob bobato]

I want to know what you think of my slavery theory. By slaves I mean African slaves of the 1840's and roman slaves of the 130's.

If you were a slave in either of these places, and you always did exactly as you were told and didn't make a fuss, how well off would you be?

Hmm. its not exactly a theory any more. Used to be a question, like 'My theory on slavery is that if you did what you were supposed to and didn't make a fuss, you would be reasonably well off'. But you got the gist of it.

 

[cubsfan6506]

This sounds like something a slave holder would say in a ttempt to justify their autrocities.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmm. its not exactly a theory any more. Used to be a question, like 'My theory on slavery is that if you did what you were supposed to and didn't make a fuss, you would be reasonably well off'. But you got the gist of it.

Sounds like your definition of "reasonably well off" does not match with mine.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's asked as a question, and is a valid one: How much difference did active cooperation make.

The answer is it varies from situation to situation. In Rome, you could do very well as a helpful slave.

In the United States its far, far less. First of all there was the limits in tasks slavery was used for. In rome, you see slaves in what would be consider Bourgoise roles: attending after the masters personal and financial affairs etc. In the agrarian South, slaves were used for two roles essentialy, primarily for agricultural labor, and to a lesser extent as domestic servents.

This would probably be the closest thing to advancement one could do as a slave. Slave owners very effectively pitted these two groups against the other. House Slaves were taught to be contemptous of field slaves, and to believe themselves to be better. Field slaves for this reason were contemptous of House Slaves. This diverted a lot of frustration away from the actual slave owner.

The other reason is the extent to which noncompliance with the masters wasn't really much of a problem. One of the greatest evils of Slavery wasn't just the physical control of human beings, but the effect on these peoples psyche. When thinking about Slaves, its important to remember not to think about the matter in terms of how you would act as a slave. These people were slaves since they were born, and lived in what was for all intents and purposes, a seperate society consisting entirely of people who had been slaves since they were born. For many, slave-mentality did not dissapear with the physical end of slavery.

 

[Traitorfish]

Short answer? Badly. Long answer: A slave is property, property has no rights. A person with no recognised rights and no means to secure them is screwed from the start. Of course, certain systems, as ParkCungHee mentioned, allowed slaves to gain there freedom, etc, but that was an overwhelming minority of slaves.
This question really extends further than slavery- it's the same question for slavery, serfdom, wage slavery, whatever the methods used by the ruling class to bind workers to their will. And the answer is always the same- cooperation gives you a slim chance of individual success, but the overwhelmingly likehood of lifelong servitude.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, in Rome, slaves who happened to be beautiful women often ended up doing all right. But the rest were treated very badly.

 

[Mirc]

Actually, in Rome, slaves who happened to be beautiful women often ended up doing all right. But the rest were treated very badly.

You had good chances at freedom if you were really capable, even if you were a a man. But of course, it depended on your master.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You had good chances at freedom if you were really capable, even if you were a a man.

Right, I forgot the Romans were into that . . .

The point being, manumission was not as uncommon for some cultures as for the American verison of slavery.

 

[Mirc]

Right, I forgot the Romans were into that . . .

The point being, manumission was not as uncommon for some cultures as for the American verison of slavery.

Wait, I wasn't talking about that.

But if you were capable (not in that sense) you could be traded by your master at a high price and end up at a high ranked person. Then you could obtain your freedom (much easier to obtain your freedom from someone who has hundreds of slaves than someone who has 2). This is known to have been happening, sometimes. Actually, I believe a slave became and Emperor once, after being adopted by his predecessor. But I don't have any information right now on this, so I might be wrong.

 

[luiz]

In Rome, as Park mentioned, skilful slaves often did jobs that today are considered prestigious, like looking after the finances of big fortunes. Some even looked after the finances of the Empire. It was also the norm for faithful slaves to be freed shortly before or right after the owner's death, and freedmen, in average, did better than the average roman citizen.

On the New World slaves did much worse, generally speaking. But this is not an absolute rule: some slaves in Brazil, freed for whatever reason, stablished extremely succesful slave trading business themselves. Some moved back to Angola, to control the business from close, and became really important figures there. It's curious that they sent a part of their profits to their former owners, even after they became richer and more powerful than the owners themselves.

 

[amaterasu]

A slave in rome could become a freeman, but overall I disagree with the OP. Many slaves ( especially in the americas) were worked so hard they could not hope to fulfill demands, or the demands were unmeetable anyways, so they got the worst deal everyway.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I want to know what you think of my slavery theory. By slaves I mean African slaves of the 1840's and roman slaves of the 130's.

If you were a slave in either of these places, and you always did exactly as you were told and didn't make a fuss, how well off would you be?

Hmm. its not exactly a theory any more. Used to be a question, like 'My theory on slavery is that if you did what you were supposed to and didn't make a fuss, you would be reasonably well off'. But you got the gist of it.

There's no guarantee of anything as a slave, but if you were a Roman slave, you at least had a chance of being free, because there were laws allowing it. If you were an African slave in the U.S., you had no chance of being free, because that was the law.

 

[Leifmk]

In Rome, as Park mentioned, skilful slaves often did jobs that today are considered prestigious, like looking after the finances of big fortunes.

Or tutoring upper-class children, etc. However these seem to have been a relative minority compared to the numbers who were stuck working at low-level menial tasks, agriculture or (worst of all) mining.

 

[MOTH]

Actually, in Rome, slaves who happened to be beautiful women often ended up doing all right. But the rest were treated very badly.

I guess if you consider being raped as "doing all right" then you are correct. Of course at this point in time there were extremely few women who had any rights at all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It wasn't always rape, though. After all, if your choice is between having sex with your owner and working in the fields, the choice isn't difficult.

 

[Louis XXIV]

For slaves in the 1840s, it depends on where you lived. If you lived in Virginia or further north, your labor might not be unbearable and you'll do fine. If you're dealing with rice or cotton in South Carolina and Georgia, things are worse. If you're on a sugar plantation in Cuba, things might be unbearable (for a long time, Cuba didn't have a sustainable slave population because they were worked to death and had to be replaced).

 

[luiz]

For slaves in the 1840s, it depends on where you lived. If you lived in Virginia or further north, your labor might not be unbearable and you'll do fine. If you're dealing with rice or cotton in South Carolina and Georgia, things are worse. If you're on a sugar plantation in Cuba, things might be unbearable (for a long time, Cuba didn't have a sustainable slave population because they were worked to death and had to be replaced).

In the brazilian sugarcane plantations and later in the gold mines that was the case. It was far more expensive to raise a slave from birth (which would also require exempting his mother from work at least for a while) than buying a new working-age slave from Africa and working him to death.

Urban slaves could have a bearable life and sometimes even win their freedom, but working as a slave in the countryside was pretty much a death warrant as those slaves lived an average of 7-12 years after purchase.

 

[1889]

Slaves in the new world were totaly screwed but slaves in Rome and the Arab world had some recognized rights. They were very much seperate systems really.

 

[ironduck]

It wasn't always rape, though. After all, if your choice is between having sex with your owner and working in the fields, the choice isn't difficult.

That is rape.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

For very broad definitions of rape. If there are a number of female slaves, and the ones who sleep with the master get better conditions, they aren't necessarily being forced.