My theory on slaves

[ironduck]

Yeah, all right, but what if the slave asks the owner for sex? What if the slave has ALWAYS wished to have sex with his owner? How do you know if he gives his consensus as a result of the power that the owner exercises on him/her?

The example I replied to was the owner asking the slave for sex. If the slave asks the owner for sex I wouldn't know what to make of it without knowing specific details. Given that the slave is still a piece of property their relationship certainly isn't equal, but that sexual act may not be rape. It would be almost impossible to tell from the outside though because the relationship isn't equal and we cannot know what kind of implicit threats existed. For instance, the slave may have gotten the perception that having sex with the owner would make it more likely he/she would be freed in the future.

More importantly, holding someone else as a slave is violating that person's integrity and freedom. A sort of permanent act of rape.

 

[Mirc]

More importantly, holding someone else as a slave is violating that person's integrity and freedom. A sort of permanent act of rape.

Of course it's wrong. I would never advocate for slavery.

But it's just that I have a much smaller definition of rape than you do. Might be a native language thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Of course it's wrong. I would never advocate for slavery.

But it's just that I have a much smaller definition of rape than you do. Might be a native language thing.

Also we're trying to apply 20th century values to a 2000 year old tradition. It should be remembered that slaves weren't the only ones who didn't get to choose who they married/slept with at the time.

 

[ironduck]

Also we're trying to apply 20th century values to a 2000 year old tradition. It should be remembered that slaves weren't the only ones who didn't get to choose who they married/slept with at the time.

Absolutely, the amount of rape all over the world even today is horrifying. When people are violated it is bad, no matter the era.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So:

Rape is bad.

Slavery is bad.

And they say no one ever reaches a consensus here!

 

[ironduck]

I've seen at least one poster on these boards indicate that slavery was a good thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Absolutely, the amount of rape all over the world even today is horrifying. When people are violated it is bad, no matter the era.

Of course it is, but certainly the concepts of what is consenting, and what is forcing is entirely different for Romans of the B.C. era. This conversation is breaking down because you can't look at things of that era through modern eyes.

 

[Mirc]

So:

Rape is bad.

Slavery is bad.

And they say no one ever reaches a consensus here!

 

[Mirc]

I've seen at least one poster on these boards indicate that slavery was a good thing.

Luckily, I haven't.

 

[ironduck]

Of course it is, but certainly the concepts of what is consenting, and what is forcing is entirely different for Romans of the B.C. era. This conversation is breaking down because you can't look at things of that era through modern eyes.

I've always disagreed with that notion. Although it's true that to understand what was going on in a certain time we have to attempt to understand what people thought, what their ethical and legal concepts were, etc.

However, even if we analyze a society where it's considered perfectly moral and legal to beat babies to death doesn't mean that those acts are not brutal. We can suspend our moral judgment of course, but it doesn't change the fact that the babies are being hurt and violated.

The same goes for slaves thousands of years ago.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I've always disagreed with that notion. Although it's true that to understand what was going on in a certain time we have to attempt to understand what people thought, what their ethical and legal concepts were, etc.

However, even if we analyze a society where it's considered perfectly moral and legal to beat babies to death doesn't mean that those acts are not brutal. We can suspend our moral judgment of course, but it doesn't change the fact that the babies are being hurt and violated.

The same goes for slaves thousands of years ago.

Allright then, if you want to argue it that way, do you think the women involved considered themselves to be raped? Do you think they considered what they were facing to be coersion? Can someone be coerced without them knowing?

 

[ironduck]

Allright then, if you want to argue it that way, do you think the women involved considered themselves to be raped? Do you think they considered what they were facing to be coersion? Can someone be coerced without them knowing?

I am convinced that when a person is been forced to do something that he/she does not want to do then that person is usually aware of that. If those slaves had had the choice of being freed and being provided the means to live their own lives, or not being freed, then it's probably safe to say that most of them would prefer no longer to be slaves.

If a person is born slave and does not know freedom, only knows fearing the master then that person lives in fear. That person may not know what it's like not to fear the master, but we can at least from the outside say that it's clear that the person could be a lot happier in different circumstances.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I am convinced that when a person is been forced to do something that he/she does not want to do then that person is usually aware of that. If those slaves had had the choice of being freed and being provided the means to live their own lives, or not being freed, then it's probably safe to say that most of them would prefer no longer to be slaves.

If a person is born slave and does not know freedom, only knows fearing the master then that person lives in fear. That person may not know what it's like not to fear the master, but we can at least from the outside say that it's clear that the person could be a lot happier in different circumstances.

Yes, but see again your applying 20th century values, and a conception of Slavery based on what happened in America. In Rome, Slavery was a social role. If your master offered you marriage or continued slavery, it was not the coercian, but offering you a means of advancement, and indeed your freedom. As I understand it, if the offer was turned down, there almost always was no sort of physical retribution, but merely a return to your place, as a master could always find new slaves. Social coercian took a much greater role in Roman slavery then physical coercian.

 

[ironduck]

I'm not referring to any special era of slavery. You asked if someone could be coerced without them knowing. If a person knows that there is a state outside of fearing punishment from the authorities then yes I think that people are typically aware of when they're being coerced.

If a person is given the choice between succumbing to something unpleasant or not, the person will usually choose not to if there is no retribution. If a person does something out of social coercion it is still forced. For instance, school girls today who allow the boys to assault them in various ways because they're afraid they will be socially isolated if they don't comply.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm not referring to any special era of slavery. You asked if someone could be coerced without them knowing. If a person knows that there is a state outside of fearing punishment from the authorities then yes I think that people are typically aware of when they're being coerced.

If a person is given the choice between succumbing to something unpleasant or not, the person will usually choose not to if there is no retribution. If a person does something out of social coercion it is still forced. For instance, school girls today who allow the boys to assault them in various ways because they're afraid they will be socially isolated if they don't comply.

And slaves who feel it is their role to fullfill? Or a means of advancement? Or people in aranged marriages? How about serfs marrying into the upper classes?

What about when the retribution is merely refusing to do something they are not obligated to do? Most slaves in Rome became slaves because they could not afford to live otherwise.

 

[ironduck]

People who are in a situation where they feel it's their role to fulfill the succumbing of themselves to their master tend to wish for it not to be so, or at least for the master to be as kind as possible. I think people on a very fundamental level appreciate kindness, and wish for it when they're not treated with such.

I know of too many stories of people who felt they for some reason or another had to succumb in such ways for many years and they describe it afterwards as quite horrible. And these stories mostly do not involve physical violence.

Becoming a slave out of dire necessity still makes a slave. They would have preferred otherwise (not being in such a dire situation) I'm sure. This again puts the master in the position discussed earlier, and the slave in a very unpleasant situation. Just because it's better than the alternative (starvation, homelessness) doesn't mean that it's not a life in fear or worries of retribution.

I'm not sure I can expand on this further.. hopefully you see my viewpoint.

 

[1889]

There are also numerous examples of people fleeing unpleasant and oppressive social obligations that were considered normal in their society, if that illustrates your point.

How about little girls that are married to their grandfathers (or whatever the worst example of bigamy is)? Many of them go ahead with it because they have no power to refuse and probably no idea that they can, still they are certainly not happy about it and at great risk some do escape.

The British/Zulu war began, in part, after some women who were being forced to marry older men, as was the custom, chose instead to flee into South Africa.

Park, you seem to be saying that you do not consider it forced if the victim does not escape or die trying.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm not sure I can expand on this further.. hopefully you see my viewpoint.

I certainly see you're viewpoint, and in my mind its a very valid one. My point is that we're trying to apply concepts that not only are completely unheard of at the time, but completely alien to those involved. I'm just saying that its generally not very productive to try and apply these concepts in such situations.

 

[ironduck]

Yes, it all boils down to oppression.. of course the worse people are oppressed the greater risks they are likely to take to escape. However, often people feel trapped because attempting escape from their current situation would likely lead to a worse one, or at least one that they cannot see where leads. Fear takes many forms, but these are very fundamental emotions in humans regardless of the social and cultural context they find themselves placed in.

edit - the above was to 1889

to Park:

I think it's very valid to analyze human conditions in the past as well as in other cultures. We learn from this. I see people arguing that we should not interfere with the oppression of people in other cultures simply because it's another culture, and I strongly disagree on the grounds that human suffering should always be taken seriously.

 

[1889]

People were aware of the concept of rape long before they could conceive of any legal recourse or prosecution of the offender. I doubt that it was any more pleasant simply because it was not illegal.