Would you have owned a slave?

might as well go way, way back to the romans and greeks.

Nevermind having slaves from one underdeveloped part of the world - have slaves from everywhere. Go to war with the next city, win, take them all as your slaves. Hope you don't lose any wars, basically.

Lol at all these very kind slave owners. So sweet, you'd let them take a bath and sing songs with them whilst you tell them how different you are to those other masters.

Like unpaid labour for shelter? Lol stop it, we all know you'd whip them into oblivion and be rapists just like your ancestors.

I wouldn't have considered owning a slave to be cruel, in and of itself. It's what you actually do to them, or force them to do for you that could end up being cruel. In the most basic sense it's just the same as employing someone to work for you; except instead of paying them money, you give them food, a place to live etc.

it's just the same as employing someone to work for you; except instead of paying them money, you give them food, a place to live etc.

lets go back to the African slave trade and the process of invading Africa and shipping its residents to America and Britain.. do you think you would have owned a slave or would you have thought it was to cruel etc?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Except that if they wanted to leave, they couldn't...
It wasn't at all like being employed, at least for most slaves.

it's nothing like employing someone. An employment contract is a consensual relationship. Slavery is not. And house slaves would often be expected to do much more than just work, they would often be expected to sexually service the master. If they became a burden, they would be sold.

What do you think it would be like to be a slave in a salt mine? Or a galley slave who had to row a giant trireme while you were chained to your seat and whipped? I think you have an extraordinarily fuzzy understanding of what slavery was about

Yes, but that's for "most slaves". I'm not talking about what slavery was actually historically like for most people. Rather, I'm talking about the concept of slavery in and of itself. There's no reason why it must necessarily be accompanied by any of the horrible things that it has historically been associated with.

If ones lives in a society where slavery is legal, its not particularly difficult to own a slave who simply works for you in return for a place in your home, and even in your family. There's nothing forcing you to be violent towards them, or to expect sexual service, or to keep them against their will.

Then you most likely would have been shot if you were found.

The black people that sold others in Africa were the worst participants actually. Betraying their own race.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, but that's for "most slaves". I'm not talking about what slavery was actually historically like for most people. Rather, I'm talking about the concept of slavery in and of itself. There's no reason why it must necessarily be accompanied by any of the horrible things that it has historically been associated with.

If ones lives in a society where slavery is legal, its not particularly difficult to own a slave who simply works for you in return for a place in your home and in your family.

Slavery by definition is keeping someone captive (at least for a set amount of time) and forcing them to work, whether they want to or not.
Even slaves who were treated well (and there certainly were a few) often desired freedom.

Don't you think that another person owning you against your will is pretty horrible? And using either force or the implicit threat of force to hold you as their property?

I accept that for some slaves it was not uniformly horrible. If you were an educated Greek in the Roman times, you might have been taken as a house slave and become a tutor to the children, and then perhaps been given a business to run and then made a freedman. But you were still owned. And that is horrible.

I'm sorry but that's just asinine. It's not like they're engaging in some kind of barter trade, that they be permitted to live in your home in exchange for work. They were purchased and then ordered to live and work in the home. That's how it worked. It wasn't some kind of contract where they were a slave in exchange for food and board.

By the way, I think you dodged the question about what your religion says about slavery and how that influenced your view of slavery.

On the other hand, there were also people, for example in the Roman Empire, who would voluntarily approach slave dealers and choose to be sold to a master, when they couldn't find other employment.

So again, it is not necessarily the case that a slave desires freedom but doesn't get it. It is only "usually" the case.

Exactly, it was highly unusual that things would work out for the slave. (Unless you have evidence to the contrary?)

(and we must talk in the past tense because how can we judge the concept without looking at past examples?)

I probably would have owned slaves if I was a Roman patrician, particularly for the sexual purposes (which, I would add, was quite normal then).

You can judge the concept on its own merits. It doesn't matter what additional baggage has come with it in the past. Strip out all the extras and look at it for what it is.

Suppose that there is a car that has historically only ever been driven by awful drivers, and has been in millions of accidents. It does not necessarily mean the car is bad, it may just mean that the drivers have been bad. Similar thing really.

Lol same as I'm black.. I think I would have been a run-away slave though.

Posted from TSR Mobile