What's the deal with slavery /his/? How come it was so common through out history? You'd figure slaves would constantly revolt against their masters. You'd expect that even slaves that were comparatively better treated, like house negros or high level Roman slaves with easy access to their masters would kill them simply out of spite.
What am I missing here? Does it have anything to do with feudalism where most people didn't work for money but just to have something to eat so basically slavery was all the same?
>>1374373
>What am I missing here
Slaves were/still are often the spoils of war, and if you get your ass kicked by a superior military power to the point where they can enslave you, you generally aren't in any position to disobey.
>>1374373
>How come it was so common through out history?
Because people are always looking for ways to cheat other people out of their labor
>You'd figure slaves would constantly revolt against their masters.
The only way to keep this from happening is to keep them illiterate and continuously terrorized.
>You'd expect that even slaves that were comparatively better treated, like house negros
They were warehoused in order to maximize profit margins
> or high level Roman slaves with easy access to their masters would kill them simply out of spite.
Romans had a different attitude towards slavery than American southerners because they viewed it as a civilizing process and were frequently freed upon their masters death (as opposed to the southerners who saw it in terms of racial determinism) a high level slave would have wanted to stay in his master's good graces because he'd be looking for employment after securing his freedom
Liberty is a modern ideal.
>>1374373
Colonial slavery was fairly atypical in regards to the history of slavery.
>>1374373
>How come it was so common through out history? You'd figure slaves would constantly revolt against their masters. You'd expect that even slaves that were comparatively better treated, like house negros or high level Roman slaves with easy access to their masters would kill them simply out of spite.
Pre-industrialization is heavily reliant on manpower-based labour. Like incredibly, unbelievably reliant.
Source: Some of my relatives are farmers in rural China. And they used to work like dogs in the fields every day just to keep the farm from rotting away.
Self-preservation is a powerful motive. Most men would indeed rather be a slave than a dead guy because they stabbed massa
>>1374373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngEICruq0fc
>You'd expect that even slaves that were comparatively better treated, like house negros or high level Roman slaves with easy access to their masters would kill them simply out of spite
why? and what would they do after that?
>>1374373
It was common everywhere during all time periods of history, until Europeans ended it.
>>1374717
>it was
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/more-slaves-today-than-at-any-time-in-history/
>>1374723
Is it bad that I don't consider sexual slavery to be real slavery? I get that it is technically slavery since the women (and I guess men sometimes) don't have a choice in their getting fucked, but to compare it to field slavery or any other kind of manual labor just seems... I dunno... off...
>>1376558
This.
>>1374373
>You'd expect that even slaves that were comparatively better treated, like house negros or high level Roman slaves with easy access to their masters would kill them simply out of spite.
Slavery wasn't seen as some horrible injustice forced on people by oppressive masters. That might be accurate for chattel slavery, where rebellions were more common, but relatively high-status slaves were often treated like a lesser member of a family and mistreating them was frowned upon. Usually they saw their plight as a social position, and while they might resent that they were hardly going to kill their masters (and thus be killed themselves) just out of that resentment. Elite slaves linked with the military or royal courts could rise high enough in society to sometimes even take it over, like the Mamluks in Egypt and Northern India, or the Habshis in the Deccan. Atlantic chattel slavery was generally rare in history, though it did happen several times.
Of course this all varies depending on the society and exact circumstances, but what I described above was true more often than not. I'm not saying that non-chattel slavery wasn't brutal or anything; they were usually procured through raiding and kidnapping and could be castrated and dehumanised depending on their destination. But once you're enslaved, the smart thing to do would be to try to survive and maybe even prosper, not to throw your life away in a fit of rage. Again, chattel slavery where you'd probably be worked to death anyway is a different story; hence why we have Haiti.
>>1376647
This is pretty good. Also, to some extent, a lot of slaves throughout history probably bought into the theoretical justifications for whatever form of slavery they served under. For instance, serfdom is often included in a lot of modern definitions of slavery. I'm sure some serfs, and some slaves in other systems, probably thought, "oh yeah, this is my place in life, I should obey by lord/master/etc."
Chattel slavery in the American South was extremely weak in this regard; it mostly relied on brute force with little ideological justification other than "blacks aren't meant to be free, they are better suited to servitude."
>>1374373
>You'd figure slaves would constantly revolt against their masters. You'd expect that even slaves that were comparatively better treated, like house negros or high level Roman slaves with easy access to their masters would kill them simply out of spite.
Mind break them with either hopelessness, "It could be worse" isms, set up cultural beliefs to support slavery in the slaves and owners (we deserve it/it's the natural order)
>>1374407
>Romans had a different attitude towards slavery than American southerners because they viewed it as a civilizing process and were frequently freed upon their masters death (as opposed to the southerners who saw it in terms of racial determinism) a high level slave would have wanted to stay in his master's good graces
This is interesting if true because thinking about it this sounds a lot how modern Chinese not-slavery works. The migrant population works in the factories often under the promise that they can buy a good education education for their families/children, which is a hopeful ticket out of their born peasant class into a middle class life. Don't fight against the system too much and accept the shit working conditions as they are because far in the future you will level up your quality of life for your family - maybe. Some will be winners at least.
Couldn't find a video directly talking about it from the factory workers themselves off hand but this documentary somewhat touches on the social dynamics of the phenomenon a bit
https://youtu.be/qm32ud6Gpfw?t=1m38s
>>1374419
You mean chattel but Forced labour/indentured labour was is pretty fucked up.
Not as brutal but pretty fucked up in it's own way because it fucked up lots of societies and cultures in various ways. You know the Congo Ocean Railway? In for Congo Railroad the lowest estimate was 13k and the range is between 15/17k-20k and the rebellion from it forced France to sign International Labour Organisation Forced Labour Convention of 1930, No. 29 in 1946. This shit wasn't special (Republic of Congo had ~1 mill in the 60's so it was still a huge dent) it was the norm in places that employed this worldwide.
>>1374717
LoL @ you that think the slavery end!
We still fighting against it. There still happening slavery everywhere specially in 3rd world countries,,, It's sad that someone thinks that Slavery finished...
>>1374373
I dunno; in America we have people devoting 80% of their time to selling their labor to large corporations at the threat of losing their housing and food rights, and nobody's revolted against that system of slavery.
>inb4 commie swine
