I don't know if it's that interesting or complicated: class consciousness is a hell of a drug, and out of the millions who purportedly accepted it and weren't slavers, most were probably actual slaves - at least when they weren't trying to escape, kill the slavers or getting maimed and tortured in horrible ways for those attempts.
For people who were neither, it's mostly meaningless to consider them as accepting to a significant degree - it's not like they were often in a position to vote slavery out, and when they were they usually did (for instance, during the French Revolution).
Looking for coherent moral worldviews that would make sense to people not already living in a slaver-dominated society concedes too much out of the gate by implying that such a thing is possible in the first place, or that slavers ever actually cared about any of this.
yeah, basically just look at how people now deal with the prospect of mass incarceration and you'll get a pretty good picture
i.e. either pretending it doesn't exist, accepting it as necessary and inevitable, or feeling that it's bad but still ignoring it since there's "nothing they can do"
Eh, slavers and bystanders absolutely had various attempts at justifying slavery, usually some kind of paternalist argument or bringing god to the heathens or whatever.
I'm not saying there were no attempted justifications. I'm just saying that they absolutely don't sound convicing today and I'm dubious of whether they were very convincing back in the day in the sense that people went along with them _because they were convinced_ instead of being terrified of violent suppression. Feudalism had justifications too but I doubt a lot of serfs _really_ bought into the idea that their lord was legitimately doing his God's allotted part of work by eating all of their grain and I would hope that we do not buy into it today.
Eh, did most people buy it? Probably not. But I suspect most people who werent actually slaves were able to convinc themselves that at least it was the lesser evil (and a few of course claimed it to be a positive good...)
I think it should be noted that even many slaves didnt neccessarily oppose slavery in principle as much as they didnt like being slaves themselves.
As for feudalism... Ideas of what feudalism means aside, it was definitely more complicated, the Vendeé war was a thing after all, there are definitely radical critiques of the social system throughout the period ("When Adam delve´d and Eve spun, who was then the gentle man?") but just as common was a kind of idea that the social order itself was just, and the problem was merely people transgressing their proper roles (by levying too high taxes, etc)
Many peasants were invested in feudalism the same way many working class people today are invested in capitalism.
The premise that many people accepted it is definitely true. The conclusion (posed as a premise) that many of those people were both 'moral' and 'rational' is absolutely wrong: slavery can only be accepted with some lack of morality or some lack of rationality, even if that's a 'blind spot'.
This fact leads to the interesting conclusion that the vast majority of people can accept or even promote totally evil acts. This could even be true today! Understanding this as a teenager helped me accept the reality of climate change in the face of total inaction by nearly everybody.
> slavery can only be accepted with some lack of morality or some lack of rationality
eh, only if you believe in objective morality I guess, which is ironically what was used to justify slavery
but like, if anything, it's perfectly in line with something like "rational self-interest"
imo you could believe your sense of morality is subjective and still see other people lacking that same sense. Like you could subjectively say their sense of morality is immoral, subjectivity is objective to the individual imo
I mean, that’s totally dependent on whether we agree that morality has some objective basis, right? Slavery is incompatible with any moral system that posits individual/universal rights, and in the modern world such systems are agreed by common consensus to be correct. But other moral systems have existed throughout time (and still exist in some places!) that do not accept or even consider the premise of universal human rights. So to say that they are all *wrong* and not merely unpopular, we have to accept an objective basis for morality - which is itself disputable.
The Western rationalization for race-based slavery was actually an attempt to have it both ways re: slavery and rights. The idea was to appeal to a higher authority - science and/or religion - to justify the claim that *certain kinds* of people aren’t fully human, and thus aren’t subject to human rights. Many other societies where slavery was/is practiced simply make no claim to the validity of “human rights” as a concept whatsoever, because the idea of universal rights that don’t just apply to citizens of a particular polity is actually a fairly modern invention.
Also, saying that slavery is *irrational* is *extremely* disputable. I’ve never seen a single argument to the effect that slavery does not yield economic benefits. It shouldn’t be a novel point to anyone here that economic incentives and moral considerations do not have any natural correlation. The primary argument against slavery is, obviously, that it is morally indefensible (or, “incompatible with any moral system that it would be desirable for society to hold”.)
the odd thing is that you get plenty of this perspective in slave narratives and other works critical of slavery. their accounts of the plantation owners' (& others on that side) perspective on slavery tracks pretty well with other accounts. so were this rationalist remotely familiar with the topic/history here they would likely not be asking this question, surprise
The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas is probably the most famous example, and I believe he discusses the topic. It's been some years since I've read it, but I do remember him discussing, for example, the claim that slaves would sing on their way to work, therefore they're at least happy with their lives.
was absolutely one of the books I was thinking of. Douglas's other books too. Harriet Jacobs's Life as well. In all these you see "good" slaveholders and "bad," and careful, often searing but also nuanced analyses of them by the slaves.
there are many discussions of things like the varying methods and attitudes of plantation overseers (who were often the ones carrying out physical torture), the transfer of authority from one generation to the next, quasi-friendships between slave children and slave owner children, the complex issues regarding slaveowners' production of children via rape of women slaves, and in so many cases, you don't just get a "LOOK EVIL VILLAIN" account of those people, but attempts to portray them as full but also profoundly broken human beings. it is really one of the most remarkable things about so many of the slave narratives--the compassion that the slaves sometimes had for the people who treated them like objects.
As far as I understand it, slavery in most cultures historically was just accepted as The Way of Things (because, hell, it sure is convenient) and the concept of “rights” (and, from there “universal rights”) is a culturally peculiar invention. For instance, the Torah took it as a given that the Hebrews would own slaves, but was actually progressive for its time insofar as it declared slaves to have certain rights (e.g. rest on the Sabbath) that superseded the whims of the master.
Arguably, the entire pseudointellectual tradition of racism in the West was created in order to reconcile the institution of slavery with Christian ethics and emerging doctrines that toyed with the notion of universal rights: “Yes, it would be wrong to enslave a fellow human, but science/God says *this* type of person doesn’t count as fully human so actually enslaving them is fine. We’re civilized!”
The fact that we have iPhones and therefore have no ground to
critique capitalism , is some of the same defenses of slave societies by
slavers “we provide them food and shelter, they are far better off than
they were in the jungle.” A student once asked Chomsky why capitalism
isn’t the best system due to standard of living increases, and he
brought up the fact that was the arguments by enslavers to justify slave
society. My question is why we have such regressive thought-lines
everywhere I look it seems.
Well, just try to understand why you think it’s great to exploit
third-world labor and that it’s moral for the Walton family to possess
billions upon billions of dollars while their suppliers, employees, and
customers all starve to various degrees, and modify them to your
setting. Done!
Two of the rationalist memes in one: 1. Every perspective has
essentially reasonable or sympathetic arguments to back it up (false),
2. Morality, like intelligence, is an essential property of people and
not something that is highly context-specific for most human beings
(which is in the teeth of the evidence - just read about literally any
society in which atrocities were perpetrated by “normal” people)
There’s quite a lot of material from the 19th century like this,
written by educated men, in a polite and rational tone, and backed up by
what they called facts and science.
If this person finds what they’re looking for, they will either wake
up to the horrors of TODAY’S crackpot rationalism, or start having
second thoughts about slavery…
Well here’s a pretty rational argumentative framework for why slavery
is wrong. If I was to point a gun at your head and tell you ” I own you
now, you work for me. And if you try to escape, I’ll fucking kill
you.”
If the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and you have that
creeping alarm bell feeling in your brain that says ” Sounds like I’m in
for a very bad time.” Then congrats you now understand why slavery is
wrong.
I remember reading two ancient arguments in support of slavery. The
first is that if you lose in battle you might be killed, but if you’re
alive you may as well be put to work because you’re not really a person
anymore as you live by the grace of the victor, and you can’t really
complain because you should be dead, coward.
The second argument was that the fruits of civilization, philosophy,
math, the arts and so on, required men of leisure and education to
produce, and that class required slaves to support them.
Not sure I’m understanding this. The “rationale” justifying class
dynamics that utilize the term slavery would be a
direct function of the time and place of writing or translation.
Likewise the phrase “moral rationalists” because rats to us are a
specific internet subculture basically meaning people who think Big Yud
is an ok groupie. Considering the conflict of reclassification of
slavery such as “wage slavery” that is happening now, it’s hard for me
to tell what they’re thinking or what you’re thinking when you talk
about slavery and how it could be morally/rationally justified.
Especially when non-human rights are invoked. A lot of liberals get
really argumentative about whether animals can be enslaved or not, and
whether it even makes sense to call it slavery. I care about animal
rights but I also believe humans are animals. Not sure what to do with
this.
on this particular hellsite it's always an American perspective unless otherwise specified, and in America they mean the early 19th century, which is actually an interesting time to talk about what was in the minds of slaveholders because you can't just say "omg presentism! judge them by their own era's standards!" when half the country and most of the western world already condemned it as evil
This got me thinking. The racist justification people had for slavery
is obvious. On the other hand eighteen century white Americans
considered “white slavery” to be abhorrent. Did ancient Greeks,
Egyptians, Jews, other ancient cultures have qualms about enslaving
people of the same ethnicity as them?
Yes to a certain extent.
The Old Testament of the Bible provides a reasonably good explanation of how slavery worked in ancient Israel. There were two types of slavery: one for Jews and one for non-Jews. Non-Jews were effectively treated as property (you could own them, beat them etc). Jews were treated closer to indentured servitude.
Depends on what you mean by "the same ethnicity", in the strictest sense there was usually a distinction between slaves from the same polity and other slaves (the usual justification tends to be that slaves from your polity will have family members, friends, etc. that might cause trouble)
scandinavian slavery had a distinction between slaves born elsewhere and slaves (fostrar) born on the estate, for instance, with slightly different rules about certain things.
Traditional islamic slavery tended to be one-generational since children of islamic converts became free, and so forth.
When the Greeks from one city state enslaved the vanquished citizens of another city state, I don't think they thought of those other people as being "the same ethnicity", even though today we think of them as all being Greek.
Also the slavery of the American south had one unique aspect which is often overlooked: mass slavery, combined with global trade, explicitly for the production of surplus value. Economic jet fuel
It is an interesting question! Millions of people apparently just accepted it for long periods. It’s it being asked on that sub that concerns me
The fact that we have iPhones and therefore have no ground to critique capitalism , is some of the same defenses of slave societies by slavers “we provide them food and shelter, they are far better off than they were in the jungle.” A student once asked Chomsky why capitalism isn’t the best system due to standard of living increases, and he brought up the fact that was the arguments by enslavers to justify slave society. My question is why we have such regressive thought-lines everywhere I look it seems.
Well, just try to understand why you think it’s great to exploit third-world labor and that it’s moral for the Walton family to possess billions upon billions of dollars while their suppliers, employees, and customers all starve to various degrees, and modify them to your setting. Done!
I wondered when this would show up here. That is honestly one of the most bizarre threads I’ve ever wandered into.
Two of the rationalist memes in one: 1. Every perspective has essentially reasonable or sympathetic arguments to back it up (false), 2. Morality, like intelligence, is an essential property of people and not something that is highly context-specific for most human beings (which is in the teeth of the evidence - just read about literally any society in which atrocities were perpetrated by “normal” people)
There’s quite a lot of material from the 19th century like this, written by educated men, in a polite and rational tone, and backed up by what they called facts and science.
If this person finds what they’re looking for, they will either wake up to the horrors of TODAY’S crackpot rationalism, or start having second thoughts about slavery…
Guys I’m having a hard time proving 2+2=potato please help
Well here’s a pretty rational argumentative framework for why slavery is wrong. If I was to point a gun at your head and tell you ” I own you now, you work for me. And if you try to escape, I’ll fucking kill you.”
If the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and you have that creeping alarm bell feeling in your brain that says ” Sounds like I’m in for a very bad time.” Then congrats you now understand why slavery is wrong.
Motte moment 😎
I remember reading two ancient arguments in support of slavery. The first is that if you lose in battle you might be killed, but if you’re alive you may as well be put to work because you’re not really a person anymore as you live by the grace of the victor, and you can’t really complain because you should be dead, coward.
The second argument was that the fruits of civilization, philosophy, math, the arts and so on, required men of leisure and education to produce, and that class required slaves to support them.
Not sure I’m understanding this. The “rationale” justifying class dynamics that utilize the term slavery would be a direct function of the time and place of writing or translation. Likewise the phrase “moral rationalists” because rats to us are a specific internet subculture basically meaning people who think Big Yud is an ok groupie. Considering the conflict of reclassification of slavery such as “wage slavery” that is happening now, it’s hard for me to tell what they’re thinking or what you’re thinking when you talk about slavery and how it could be morally/rationally justified. Especially when non-human rights are invoked. A lot of liberals get really argumentative about whether animals can be enslaved or not, and whether it even makes sense to call it slavery. I care about animal rights but I also believe humans are animals. Not sure what to do with this.
This got me thinking. The racist justification people had for slavery is obvious. On the other hand eighteen century white Americans considered “white slavery” to be abhorrent. Did ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, other ancient cultures have qualms about enslaving people of the same ethnicity as them?
if only they had access to a very basic 101 level history book
“It’s for a book, you see”