What makes US slaveholders unique in history is that they lived in a society the explicit premise of which was "all men are created equal." The idea of basic human equality was what never occurred to the ancients.
Meh. As far back as humans go there were tribes that were explicitly living under communal equality...and held captives from rival tribes as slaves. "All men are created equal" was always rooted in a very limited sample of "all."
Meh. As far back as humans go there were tribes that were explicitly living under communal equality...and held captives from rival tribes as slaves. "All men are created equal" was always rooted in a very limited sample of "all."
"explicit communal equality" has never really been a thing...and in fact we have no idea whether or for how long people have "held captives from rival tribes as slaves", as by the nature of things there is no evidence of this at all. There are in fact examples from ethnography of tribes without any form of slavery at all (e.g. in the Pacific Northwest of this continent), who integrated captives into their own tribe...and there have been examples ranging down the spectrum from relatively mild forms of bondage to brutal institutions resembling the more familiar form of chattel slavery.
Anyway, as Dachs has already made the argument here and no one has rebutted it or even come close I got nothing else to say.
Hunter gather bands tend to have very high levels of equality among all able bodied adult members, but they tend to treat young children and infirm elders terribly. Slavery is not really a thing until the society has developed ways to use excess unfree labor, which generally means agriculture. Societies that are partially hunter gatherer and partially agricultural (like many Native American groups) tended to take prisoners of war as slaves but raise the children of slaves as equal members of the community, and usually allowed those slaves who have proven themselves most useful to become full members of the tribe as well.
The Aztecs were bloodthirsty maniacs who genuinely believed that if they didn't take the heart out of their hapless victims while still alive and then peel off their skin and wear it as a garment the Sun wouldn't come up tomorrow
In fairness, if they genuinely believe the whole sun-skin thing, it would be unfair to call them "maniacs" for following through. What, you don't want the sun to come up tomorrow?
In fairness, if they genuinely believe the whole sun-skin thing, it would be unfair to call them "maniacs" for following through. What, you don't want the sun to come up tomorrow.
If Charles C. Mann is to be believed, the victims chosen for human sacrifice were usually condemned criminals. As a proportion of their total populations, almost every state in Europe around that time conducted more public executions (of criminals including heretics and in protestant countries also suspected witches) than the Aztecs did. It sounds like the Europeans were the real bloodthirsty maniacs.
To be more just overall, yes. A system based on a claim of justice is much more capable of actually becoming decent than a system where war captives and slaves are perfectly acceptable offerings to appease the gods.
To be more just overall, yes. A system based on a claim of justice is much more capable of actually becoming decent than a system where war captives and slaves are perfectly acceptable offerings to appease the gods.
At least with war captives and slaves you really know what you are offering. In the good old days when it took a sacrificial virgin to appease the gods you would always be left wondering whether you had missed the mark.
At least with war captives and slaves you really know what you are offering. In the good old days when it took a sacrificial virgin to appease the gods you would always be left wondering whether you had missed the mark.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
