A Dissertation on the Merits and Flaws of the Concept of Slavery
prepared by
The Right Honourable The Mulatto Maker, PhD, Historical Studies
While today "slavery" conjures images of poor downtrodden Africans being sailed across the Atlantic in horribly cramped, filthy conditions, and then being forced to work inhumanely with no recompense, this is in fact only in comparison to the modern era. We live in a time that could not be visualized without the lens of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; however, the abolition of slavery represents only about the most recent 2% of human history. The earlier eras, while indeed "nasty, brutish, and short," must be given consideration as worthy in their own right.
Thus, the 5850 (approx.) years of human civilization that
did experience slavery must count for something. Humanity survived, after all; we must've been doing something right. But how does one define those years? As simply "pre-Emancipation"? Can all of humanity's existence be easily lumped into "slavery" and "not-slavery"? Now, logic dictates that either a) slavery was allowed, or b) slavery was not allowed; but can it be that simple to break down? Were there perhaps many distinct levels of slavery, or possibly different systems altogether? For instance, the notable Caste system of the Indian subcontinent cannot be classified as slavery, and obviously cannot be classified as emancipation. The serf-like status of peasants in Europe's High Middle Ages were not slaves, but they were certainly not free. Moreover, if emancipation occurred in the United States in 1863, when did slavery "occur"? Did we understand the concept from our first consciousness, or was it a learned, acquired behavior?
These are the questions that we must face. The idea of slavery dirties the modern mind; but history has shown that nearly every one of the "Wonders of the World" was built on the backs of a subjugated populace. Every recorded instance of a smithy, grain storage area, lighthouse, or court building being erected- in any city anywhere in the world- prior to c. 1600 CE can be conclusively linked to the slaves. Not necessarily
foreign slaves, mind you, many were simply local citizens bred over centuries expressly for the purpose of dying to aid the cause of civilization.
One must also question the motives and mindsets of the great abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is commonly accepted that the so-called "enlightened despots" of Renaissance Europe would have been rather unelightened despots had they been born three millenia earlier. The great champions of free speech would have thought otherwise, were they in command in 780 CE rather than 1780 CE. That would leave us with the idea that Wilberforce and de las Casas, among others, would likely have owned slaves of their own if they lived in, say, Athens or Rome.
I leave it to the reader to determine in his or her own mind to justify or condemn the actions of our ancestors. But please, do not look at this question with 21st-century eyes. "Slavery", though horrid
today, was nothing less than the engine that allowed the creation of our world.
