Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 282: Line 282:     
::::::While it's true that the word "slavery" today has racist connotations, the actual motivation behind slavery (extremely cheap labour for the buyers, profit for the sellers,and never mind the human chattel) is not racist and was much the same in Rome and America. Slaves in America escaped frequently too (The Underground Railroad, for example), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
 
::::::While it's true that the word "slavery" today has racist connotations, the actual motivation behind slavery (extremely cheap labour for the buyers, profit for the sellers,and never mind the human chattel) is not racist and was much the same in Rome and America. Slaves in America escaped frequently too (The Underground Railroad, for example), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::::I think "slavery" in the historical American context is, broadly speaking, part-and-parcel with racism, but I don't think that slavery throughout history always meant enslaving those of a different race.  My (admittedly non-expert) impression is that sometimes slaves were prisoners of war, sometimes those captured in far-off lands, sometimes children of slaves, sometimes the poor, etc.  Of course it is easier to enslave someone who is perceived as inherently very different than the slave-owners.  In America, the race aspect was pretty complex; for example some slaves were their masters' biological children, thus the need I suppose for the "one drop" rule.  <br>
 +
"Slavery" today tends to be used to refer to situations where a usually poor, usually uneducated, sometimes in-the-country-illegally person is isolated from others and forced into labor (or worse).  Slaves are kept essentially captive through force, intimidation, and/or illegal immigration status.  Sometimes the law sides with the slave and prosecutes the slaveholder, but not always.  Race is less likely to be a factor, though nationality is.<br>
 +
The term "prisoner of war" today involves widely-accepted rules as to how prisoners are to be treated; generally speaking they are not subject to forced labor or sexually abused, thus they are not considered to be slaves.  I don't know if that was the case throughout history; I think it is likely that it was not the case.<br>
 +
It's difficult, isn't it?!  [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], perhaps it would help if you could explain a bit more about Biblical slavery and how it differed from that of today and our country's experience in the past?  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
    
== Oversight? ==
 
== Oversight? ==
1,837

edits

Navigation menu